The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Mahadu Nagorao Shirde
2016 Latest Caselaw 5406 Bom

                                             1                      FA No. 937/2016

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                             
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            FIRST APPEAL NO.937 OF 2016




                                                     
      1)       The State of Maharashtra
               Through Collector, Nanded.




                                                    
      2)       The Special Land Acquisition 
               Officer, Percolation Tank,
               Minor Irrigation Works No.2,
               Nanded, Dist. Nanded.




                                      
      3)       The Executive Engineer,
               M.I.W. (Medium Project)
               Division, Nanded.
                              ig                      =    APPELLANTS
                                                      (orig. Respondents)

               VERSUS
                            
      Mahadu s/o Nagorao Shirde
      Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Agril.
      R/o Jaldhara, Tq. Kinwat,
      District Nanded.                                =    RESPONDENT
      

                                                      (orig. Claimant) 
                                       -----
   



      Mr.SN Morampalle, AGP for Appellants;
      Ms.MR Jamdhade, Advocate for Respondent.
                                       -----





                                   CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

20 th

September,2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned

Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for

final disposal.

2) The State has filed the present appeal

taking exception to the judgment and award passed

by 2nd Ad hoc District Judge, Nanded on 23 rd

January, 2006 in LAR No.184/1998.

3) The subject land admeasuring 2 hectares

and 58 Ares situated at village Jaldhara was

acquired for the percolation tank to be

constructed at village Jaldhara, Tq. Kinwat,

District Nanded. Notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the

Act) in that regard was published in Government

Gazette on 13th March, 1993 and the Award under

Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on 27 th

March, 1996.

. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

(for short, SLAO) fixed the market value of the

acquired land @ Rs.24000/- per hectare and

accordingly offered the amount of compensation to

the present respondent. Being dissatisfied with

the amount of compensation so offered, the

claimant presented an application under Section

18 of the Act to Collector, Nanded, who in turn,

forwarded the said application for adjudication

to the Civil Court at Nanded (herein after

referred as Reference Court).

. Before the Reference Court, the claimant

had claimed the compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per

hectare. In order to substantiate the claim so

made, the claimant adduced his oral evidence as

well as placed on record two sale instances. No

oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the

State. The Reference Court, after assessing the

oral and documentary evidence brought before it,

determined the market value of the acquired land

@ Rs.42,500/- per hectare and accordingly

enhanced the amount of compensation. Aggrieved

by the same, the State has filed the present

appeal.

4) Shri Morampalle, learned AGP appearing

for the State has assailed the judgment and award

on the ground that without there being any cogent

and sufficient evidence therefor the Reference

Court has arbitrarily enhanced the amount of

compensation almost twice to the rate as was

fixed by the SLAO. The learned AGP submitted

that out of the two sale instances, one was out

of consideration, for the reason that it was

executed after four years of issuance of the

notification under Section 4 of the Act.

. The learned AGP further submitted that

the another sale instance, which was of the year

1986, was pertaining to 61 Ares land and the

consideration received was Rs.14,250/-. The

learned AGP further submitted that the Reference

Court, while determining the amount of

compensation, has unnecessarily increased the

amount of market value while placing the reliance

on the said sale instance. The learned AGP,

therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned

judgment and award and to re-determine the market

value of the acquired land and accordingly to

refix the amount of compensation.

5) Learned Counsel appearing for the

original claimant - respondent has supported the

impugned judgment and submitted that no

interference is warranted in the judgment and

award so passed.

6) On perusal of the impugned judgment, it

reveals that the Reference Court has thoroughly

examined the oral and documentary evidence

brought on record before it. The discussion made

by the Reference Court in its judgment further

reveals that it has not blindly relied upon the

sale instances placed on record by the claimant,

but has also considered the plus and minus

factors attached to the acquired land while

determining the amount of compensation.

. It is further revealed that the

Reference Court has declined to rely upon the

sale instance dated 7.5.1997, observing that it

was of the period after issuance of Section 4

notification. While relying on the sale instance

dated 8.4.1986 pertaining to 61 Ares land, the

Reference Court has elaborately discussed as to

how the price needs to be increased by taking

into account the relevant circumstances and has

accordingly enhanced the amount to the tune of

Rs.42,500/- per hectare. The Reference Court has

observed that the land, which was the subject

matter of sale deed executed on 8.4.1986 was dry

land whereas there was reason to believe that the

acquired land was semi-irrigated land. The

Reference Court has observed that the 7/12

extract of the acquired land, which is at Exh.

23, show existence of well in the said land. It

is further observed by the Reference Court that

taking into account the crops, which were being

taken in the acquired land, though it cannot be

accepted that it was fully irrigated land, there

was reason to believe that it was semi-irrigated

land and accordingly, by applying the settled

norms, the Reference court has determined the

amount of compensation.

7) After having gone through the entire

material on record, it does not appear to me that

any mistake has been committed by the Reference

Court in determining the amount of compensation.

Admittedly, no oral as well as documentary

evidence was adduced by the State so as to take

any different view. In the circumstances, I do

not see any reason for causing any interference

so far as the market value determined by the

Reference Court and the compensation accordingly

assessed by the Reference Court.

. However, there appears substance in the

submissions made by learned AGP that the

Reference Court has committed an error in

awarding the interest under Section 34 of the

Act. In view of the Full Bench Judgment delivered

by this Court in the Case of The State of

Maharashtra Through Sub-Division Officer Vs.

Kailash Shiva Rangari - 2016(4) Bom CR 1, no such

interest can be awarded. To this extent, the

appeal needs to be allowed by setting aside the

impugned order to that extent.

      8)               In the result, the following order, 




                                                                         
                                       ORDER




                                                 
      i)               The appeal is partly allowed;

      ii)              The impugned order so far as it relates 




                                                

to grant of interest under Section 34 of the Act,

is quashed and set aside. The other part of the

impugned order is maintained as it is.

iii) No order as to costs. Pending Civil

Application, if any, stands disposed of.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/