Madhukar S/O Ramlu Chintawar vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6116 Bom

925-J-MCA-208-17                                                                         1/4


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                   MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2006
                                     IN
                      CROSS OBJECTION NO.16 of 2006
                                     IN
                      FIRST APPEAL NO.50 OF 2006 (D)


Madhukar s/o Ramlu Chintawar 
aged about 84 years, 
Occupation - cultivator, 
at Industrial Estate, 
Mul Road, Macchinala, Chandrapur, 
Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur                                      ... Applicant. 

-vs-

1.  The special Land Acquisition
     Officer (General), 
     Gadchiroli. 

2.  The Collector,
     Gadchiroli. 

3.  The Sarpanch,
     Gram Panchayat, Ashti, 
     Dist. Gadchiroli.                                      ... Non-applicants. 


Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for applicant. 
Shri A. D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant Nos.1 & 2. 


                                 CORAM  :  A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : AUGUST 16, 2017

Oral Judgment :

Admit.

Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

925-J-MCA-208-17 2/4

Shri A. D. Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives

notice on behalf of non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. Notice on non-applicant No.3

is dispensed with.

2. The applicant who is the original claimant in LAC No.1/1998 has

sought review of the judgment dated 10/01/2017 in F.A. No.50 of 2005

along with Cross Objection No.16 of 2006.

Shri A. Shelat, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in

cross-objection filed by the claimant, a ground was raised that interest under

provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,

the said Act) could not have been deducted from 25/04/1994 to 31/07/1995

as was deducted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was submitted that the

claimant had filed Writ Petition No.1153 of 1994 challenging the

notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act. This Court issued

notice before admission in the writ petition on 25/04/1994 and only

protected the possession of the applicant until further orders. This writ

petition was ultimately dismissed on 31/07/1995. The Land Acquisition

Officer while passing the award disallowed interest for the aforesaid period

on the ground that there was an order of stay operating in the writ petition.

It was thus submitted that since the acquisition proceedings were not stayed

but only the possession of the applicant was protected, the applicant would

be entitled for interest for that period and the explanation to Section 23(1-A)

925-J-MCA-208-17 3/4

of the said Act would not apply. Though this point was raised in the cross-

objection, the same was not adjudicated.

3. Shri A. D. Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that this Court had passed an interim

order protecting the possession of the applicant. He referred to the

observations of the Land Acquisition Officer in the award where it has been

observed that this order of stay prolonged the proceedings but did not affect

its acquisition. It was therefore submitted that in view of explanation to

Section 23(1-A) of the said Act, the applicant is not entitled for interest for

that period. No case for review was thus made out.

3. Perused the judgment under review as well as the copy of cross-

objection filed by the applicant. A ground has been raised in the cross-

objection that what was protected was only the applicant's possession and

the acquisition proceedings were not held up by virtue of an interim order of

stay or injunction. According to explanation to Section 23 (1-A) of the said

Act it is only if the acquisition proceedings are held up on account of any stay

or injunction or order of any Court, can that period of stay be excluded. The

interim order passed in Writ Petition No.1153 of 1994 is clear and only the

possession was protected. Moreover, the Land Acquisition Officer in

paragraph G (b) of his award at Exhibit-152 has observed that the acquisition

925-J-MCA-208-17 4/4

proceedings were not affected by the interim order. Same also did not affect

the process of valuation.

4. It is therefore clear that while granting statutory interest the

period from 25/04/1994 to 31/07/1995 was not liable to be deducted. The

claimant was therefore entitled for interest with regard to additional

component for the period from 25/04/1994 till 31/07/1995. As this aspect

was not adjudicated though raised in cross-objection, a case for review has

been made out.

5. Accordingly the application is partly allowed. Judgment dated

10/01/2017 in F.A. No.50 of 2006 along with Cross Objection No.16 of 2006

is partly modified. It is held that the claimant is entitled for statutory interest

under provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the said Act for the period from

25/04/1994 to 31/07/21995. This amount of interest be paid to the

applicant within period of three months from today.

Misc. Application is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

JUDGE

Asmita