Bombay High Court
Gorakh Bapu Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 September, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA Nos.2526/2016 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2526 OF 2016
Aba s/o. Dashrath Pawar,
Age:65 years, Occu.: Agril,
R/o. Karkhel, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Beed,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2016
Gorakh s/o. Bapu Pawar,
Age:62 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Karkhel, Tq. Ashti,
Dist.:Beed. ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Beed,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Beed
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:10:59 :::
2 FA Nos.2526/2016 & Ors.
FIRST APPEAL NO.2530 OF 2016
Gulab s/o. Ananda Pawar,
Age:70 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Karkhel, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Beed,
2.
The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri C.K. Shinde, Advocate for Appellant/s.
S/shri S.P.Deshmukh, S.N.Morampalle and
A.M.Phule, AGP's in respective matters.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
22 nd
September,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for
final disposal.
2) In the present appeals, it is the
grievance of the appellants that the Reference
Court, though did grant interest under Sections
28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for
short, the Act) on the enhanced amount of
compensation, did not grant such interest on the
amount to which the appellants are held entitled
under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act.
3) Shri Shinde, learned Counsel appearing
for the appellants, invited my attention to order
clauses 5 and 6 in each of the LARs and submitted
that the Reference Court has erred in awarding
the interest only on the enhanced amount of
market value by specifying the amount so
determined by the Reference Court. The learned
Counsel, taking me through the provisions of
Sections 23, 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the
Act, submitted that the interest is liable to be
granted under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act by
adding into enhanced amount of compensation the
amount of 12% component as well as 30% solatium.
. In order to support his contention, the
learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Vs.
Union of India - 2001 SC 3516. In the aforesaid
matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that, -
"in calculating the interest, as mentioned in
provisions under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act,
amount of solatium, as envisaged under Section
23(2) of the Act, should be included."
4)
The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed
for grant of interest on the amount of 12%
component and the 30% solatium, as provided under
Section 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act and to
modify the Award accordingly.
5) Shri Phule, learned AGP appearing for
the State, submitted that in view of the
judgment, relied upon by the appellants in the
case of Sunder (cited supra), the entitlement of
the appellants for the interest on the entire
amount of compensation including 12% component
and 30% solatium on the enhanced market value,
cannot be denied.
. Learned AGP however, submitted that in
the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has
awarded interest under Section 34 of the Act from
the date of possession and not from the date of
the Award under Section 11 of the Act. Learned
AGP further submitted that in view of the Full
Bench Judgment delivered by this Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari - 2016 (4) Bom CR 1, the interest under
Section 34 of the Act can only be awarded from
the date of the Award under Section 11 of the
Act. The learned AGP, therefore, prayed that
though the State has not filed any cross-
objections or appeal challenging the aforesaid
clause of the order, under inherent jurisdiction,
this Court may correct that mistake and may pass
appropriate order.
6) The Reference Court has admittedly
awarded the interest under Sections 28 and 34 of
the Act only on the amount of enhanced market
value of the acquired lands by specifying the
said amount in the concerned order clauses, i.e.
clause 5 and clause 6. Though, the Reference
Court has held that as per the Section 23(1-A) of
the Act, the claimants are entitled to get
component @ 12% p.a. on the enhanced market
value, and as per Section 23(2) of the Act,to get
30% solatium amount on the enhanced market value,
while awarding the interest under Sections 28 and
34 of the Act, the same has been awarded only on
the amount of enhanced market value and as I
stated earlier, the Court has specified the said
amount in the order clauses.
. It is thus evident that though the
Reference Court has enhanced the market value of
the acquired lands and has accordingly assessed
the enhanced amount of compensation and has also
awarded interest thereon under sections 28 and 34
of the Act, has not granted interest on the
amount payable to the appellants under Sections
23(1-A) of the Act as also under Section 23(2) of
the Act on the enhanced amount of compensation.
7) In the case of Sunder Vs Union of India
(cited supra), a question was referred to the the
five-judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court,
whether the State is liable to pay interest on
the amount envisaged under Section 23(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ?. While deciding the
aforesaid controversy, the five-judges Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 23 and 24 of
the said judgment, has held that, -
"23. In deciding the question as to
what amount would bear interest un-
der Section 34 of the Act a peep
into Section 31(1) of the Act would
be advantageous. That sub-section
says: "On making an award under
section 11, the Collector shall
tender payment of the compensation
awarded by him to the persons in-
terested entitled thereto according
to the award, and shall pay it to
them unless prevented by some one
or more of the contingencies men-
tioned in the next sub- section."
The remaining sub-sections in that
provision only deal with the con-
tingencies in which the Collector
has to deposit the amount instead
of paying it to the party con-
cerned. It is the legal obligation
of the Collector to pay "the com-
pensation awarded by him" to the
party entitled thereto. We make it
clear that the compensation awarded
would include not only the total
sum arrived at as per sub- section
(1) of Section 23 but the remaining
sub-sections thereof as well. It is
thus clear from Section 34 that the
expression "awarded amount" would
mean the amount of compensation
worked out in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 23,
including all the sub-sections
thereof.
24. The proviso to Section 34 of
the Act makes the position further
clear. The proviso says that "if
such compensation" is not paid
within one year from the date of
taking possession of the land, in-
terest shall stand escalated to 15%
per annum from the date of expiry
of the said period of one year "on
the amount of compensation or part
thereof which has not been paid or
deposited before the date of such
expiry". It is inconceivable that
the solatium amount would attract
only the escalated rate of interest
from the expiry of one year and
that there would be no interest on
solatium during the preceding peri-
od. What the legislature intended
was to make the aggregate amount
under Section 23 of the Act to
reach the hands of the person as
and when the Award is passed, at
any rate, as soon as he is deprived
of the possession of his land. Any
delay in making payment of the said
sum should enable the party to have
interest on the said sum until he
receives the payment. Splitting of
the compensation into different
components for the purpose of pay-
ment of interest under Section 34
was not in the contemplation of the
legislature when that Section was
framed or enacted."
8) In view of the law laid down, as above,
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there remains no doubt
that the appellants are entitled to get interest
on the aggregate amount of compensation including
the amount calculated @ 12% p.a. On the enhanced
market value, as provided under Section 23(1-A)
of the Act and the sum of 30% of such enhanced
market value, as provided under Section 23(2) of
the Act. The Reference Court has thus committed
an error in not awarding the interest as
aforesaid. As such, the impugned Award needs to
be modified to the aforesaid extent.
9) The another mistake committed by the
Reference Court of granting interest under
Section 34 of the Act from the date of possession
also needs to be corrected. In view of the
Full bench judgment of this Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari
(cited supra), such interest can only be awarded
from the date of award and not from the date of
possession.
10) In the result, the following order, -
ORDER
i) The appellants are held entitled to get
interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act
on the aggregated amount, which would include
the enhanced market value of the acquired
lands plus the amount payable on the said
amount under Sections 23(1-A) of the Act plus
30% of the amount of such enhanced market
value, as provided under Section 23(2) of the
Act;
ii) The impugned Award so far as it relates to
grant of interest under Section 34 of the Act
from the date of possession, is quashed and
set aside and instead, it is ordered that
such interest be awarded from the date of
Award;
iii) The impugned Awards be accordingly modified;
iv) The appeals stand partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms. Pending Civil Application,
if any, stands disposed of.
sd/-
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
title Kodgire
bdv/jt.
