Summary: The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently decided on several cases about payment for land in Vaijapur. The court decided to increase the payment for lands that can be watered for farming and sent some cases back to look more into extra payment for buildings and trees.
This case is about several landowners from Vaijapur who were unhappy with the money they got for their lands taken by the government. The cases were looked at by Justice Shailesh P. Brahme.
The main question was whether Kamlabai Rakhibdas Sancheti and other landowners could get more money than what was first decided by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court. The landowners argued that their lands should be considered as lands that can be watered, which would mean more money.
The court split the cases into two groups:
The court agreed with the cases saying the lands could be watered. Justice Brahme decided these lands should get more money, specifically Rs. 3,000 per R, which matches the amount for lands that can be watered.
"People in First Appeal Nos. 1328, 1330, 1331, and 1368 of 2024 will get Rs. 3,000 per R for their lands."
For Group II, the court noticed that the Reference Court had not fully looked into the claims for extra money for buildings and trees. These cases were sent back for more review.
"The cases are sent back to the Reference Court, which will look at their claims again based on the information available."
The court highlighted the helpful nature of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which aims to give fair money to landowners. The decision mentioned several Supreme Court decisions to support the view that money should not be limited to the original amount when there are extra factors involved.
The Reference Court has been told to look again at the claims for wells, houses, and trees, and to sort these issues out quickly.
"The Reference Court should decide on the money for wells, houses/huts, buildings, and trees...ideally within ten months."
This decision shows the court's commitment to making sure landowners get fair money and sets an example for similar cases in the future.
