Bombay High Court
Tukaram Maruti Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 December, 2014
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
(1) W.P. No. 4415 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2014
Tukaram s/o. Maruti Pawar,
Age : 65 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Sangvi Patan,
Taluka : Ashti,
District : Beed. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Government Pleader,
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad.
2. The Collector, Beed,
District : Beed.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Beed, District : Beed.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Zilla Parishad, Beed,
District : Beed. .. Respondents.
.........................
Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader,
for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate, for respondent no.4.
..........................
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2014 23:46:11 :::
(2) W.P. No. 4415 of 2014
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :
1. Heard respective Counsel for the parties, finally, by issuing
Rule and making it returnable forthwith.
2. Section 4 notification was published on 30-11-2000 and
Section 11 award has been made on 5-3-2002. The petitioner - land owner
thereafter filed proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [For short, "1894 Act"] for enhancement. The reference court on 26-
9-2006, declined petitioner, benefit of Section 34 of 1894 Act. However,
benefit of Section 23(1A) of 1894 Act has been given for the period from
Section 4 notification till making of award.
3. In this situation, Adv. Jayabhar for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner must be given benefit of Government policy and rental
compensation from the date on which possession was lost, till date of
Section 4 notification, must be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner lost
possession on 13-2-1999 i.e. prior to Section 4 notification.
4. After hearing respective Counsel, we find that as possession
was lost before date of Section 4 notification, reference court rightly
declined to extend benefit of Section 34 of 1894 Act, to the petitioner. For
very same reason, benefit of Section 23(1A) also should have been
declined. Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Ramkrishna Reddy [(2011) 11 SCC
648] and Dinkar Sandipan Gholve & others State of Maharashtra [2009 (3)
(3) W.P. No. 4415 of 2014
BCR 891] clinch this aspect. However, reference court has granted
petitioner, 12 % per annum, for the period of about 16 months i.e. from
30-11-2000 till 5-3-2002. Thus, this benefit has been given to the
petitioner though he was not entitled to it. The question is, whether on the
basis of this grant, while determining market value, further interest in
terms of Section 28 has been worked out. The petitioner is not in a
position to disclose correct facts, at this stage, about grant of interest under
Section 28 of 1894 Act.
5. The rental compensation under Section 4 is awarded at 8 % of
the market value determined in Section 11 award. Section 11 award
determines market value of property as on date of Section 4 notification.
Thus, the petitioner gets market value of his property on 30-11-2000, as if
he has sold the property on that date. For time taken to work out
compensation i.e. for delayed payment of said consideration, the petitioner
gets interest under Section 28 at 9 % and 15 %. Thus, the petitioner ceases
to be owner from date of Section 4 notification itself. As such, there is no
question of paying rental compensation for the period subsequent to
Section 4 notification.
6. The petitioner may have been entitled to rental compensation
to be paid for the period prior to Section 4 notification. Here, that period
is from 13-2-1999 to 30-11-2000. However, in the present facts, the
reference court has extended to the petitioner, benefit of additional
component under Section 23(1A) of 1894 Act. That benefit is required to
be calculated at 12 % per annum. Thus, when rental compensation is to be
worked out at 8 % per annum, the petitioner has been paid erroneously,
under Section 23(1A) of 1894 Act, at 12 % per annum. The petitioner
may, therefore, end up in finding that he has received excess amount even
(4) W.P. No. 4415 of 2014
after adjusting his claim towards rental compensation.
7. In this situation, we direct respondent no.3 - Special Land
Acquisition Officer, to find out the entitlement of the petitioner, to any
additional amount, in the present facts, on account of loss of possession on
13-2-1999. The entitlement shall be strictly in accordance with the
observations made above, for the period up to 30-11-2000. After adjusting
the amount already paid to him towards amount so worked out, if any
additional amount is found payable to the petitioner, respondent no.4 -
acquiring authority shall arrange to pay it, to the petitioner, within a period
of three months of such adjudication.
8. However, if respondent no.3 finds that amount in excess is
received by him and is to be recovered back, it shall initiate steps to
recover it from the petitioner and hand it over to respondent no.4, within
similar period.
9. The Writ Petition is, thus, partly allowed and Rule made
absolute accordingly. No costs.
( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )
JUDGE JUDGE
................................
puranik / WP4415.14
