Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Kukadi ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 939 fast 5205-16 + in appeal .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 5205/2016
1. The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Distribution & Construction
Division, Kolwadi, Tq. Karjat. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of maharashtra,
(Copy to be served on Got. Pleader
High Court of Bombay Benach at
Aurangabad.)
2. Pandurang Damodhar Kopnar,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
3. Sundarrao Damodhar Kopnar,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
4. Ramprabhu Damodhar Kopnar,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o.: Dombalwadi, Tq. Karjat,
District : Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.5211/2016
1. The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Distribution & Construction
Division, Kolwadi, Tq. Karjat. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of maharashtra,
(Copy to be served on Got. Pleader
High Court of Bombay Benach at
Aurangabad.)
VSM
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2017 00:16:14 :::
2 939 fast 5205-16 + in appeal .odt
2. Arjun Rama Belgal,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
3. Rahibai Santram Dombale,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
4. Gangubai Santram Dombale,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o.: Dombalwadi, Tq. Karjat,
District : Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.5208/2016
1. The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Distribution & Construction
Division, Kolwadi, Tq. Karjat. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of maharashtra,
(Copy to be served on Got. Pleader
High Court of Bombay Benach at
Aurangabad.)
2. Ajinath Khandu Lokhande,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
Through G.P.A.
Namdeo Ajinath Lokhande,
Age : 40 years, Occu.: Agril.,
3. Tukaram Khandu Lokhande,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o.: Dombalwadi, Tq. Karjat,
District : Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.5075/2016
1. The Executive Engineer,
VSM
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2017 00:16:14 :::
3 939 fast 5205-16 + in appeal .odt
Kukadi Distribution & Construction
Division, Kolwadi, Tq. Karjat. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of maharashtra,
(Copy to be served on Got. Pleader
High Court of Bombay Benach at
Aurangabad.)
2. Badshah Rahman Bagwan,
Age : 55 years, Occu.: Agril.,
3. Hamjekhan Rahman Bagwan,
(Deceased through his L.Rs.)
3-i). Smt. Ashabee Hamjekhan Bagwan,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
3-ii) Shabbir Hamjekhan Bagwan,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
4. Jafar Rahman Bagwan,
(Deceased through his L.Rs.)
4-i) Smt. Mumtaj Jafar Bagwan,
Age : 55 years, Occu.: Household,
4-ii) Javed Jafar Bagwan,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agril.,
5. Imam Rahman Bagwan,
Age : 53 years, Occu.: Agril.,
6. Ajamer Rahman Bagwan,
Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agril.,
7. Gulab Rahman Bagwan,
Age : 62 years, Occu.: Agril.,
Respondent no.2 Special G.P.A. of
respondent nos. 3 to 7.
R/o.: Malangi, Tq. Karjat,
District : Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS.
VSM
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2017 00:16:14 :::
4 939 fast 5205-16 + in appeal .odt
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rajale Gulab B.
AGP for Respondent no.1: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale.
Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Adv., I/b Mr.
Mr. A. V. Hon.
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 05-07-2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1) Shri Rajale, learned Counsel appearing for the acquiring
body assailed the impugned common judgment and award on various
grounds. Learned Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has
unreasonably enhanced the amount of compensation by determining the
market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Hector
though there was no sufficient evidence. Learned Counsel further
submitted that the SLAO had assessed the market value at the rate of
Rs.24,000/- per Hector and that was the correct market value of the
acquired lands. Learned Counsel submitted that the sale instances
which are relied upon by the Reference Court are not of comparable
lands and in such circumstances, the impugned common judgment and
award deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel further submitted that
the Reference Court has further erred in awarding interest under Section
34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of possession. Learned
Counsel relying on the Full Bench Judgment of this court in case of State
of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari reported in 2016(4) ALL MR
513, submitted that the Reference Court could not have awarded
interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of possession. He,
therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal.
2) Shri Hon, learned Senior Counsel resisted the submissions
made by the learned Counsel appearing for the acquiring body. The
VSM
5 939 fast 5205-16 + in appeal .odt
learned Senior Counsel inviting my attention to the discussion made by
the learned Reference Court in regard to the sale instances brought on
record by the claimants submitted that Reference Court has rightly
analysed the said evidence and on the basis of the same, has determined
the market value of acquired lands at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Hector.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, in fact, claimants were
expecting some more enhancement in the compensation than awarded
by the Reference Court. Learned Counsel submitted that, no
interference is required in the impugned judgment and award so far as it
relate to determination of market value. Learned Senior Counsel,
however, fairly conceded that, in view of the Full Bench Judgment in
case of Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra), interest under Section 34 of the Act
would be payable only from the date of award. Learned Counsel
therefore, prayed for passing appropriate orders in that regard.
3) I have carefully gone through the common judgment and
award delivered by the Reference Court. It does not appear to me that
the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation unreasonably. The
sale instances which were produced on record are duly considered by
the Reference Court. On the contrary by considering all relevant
circumstances, the Reference Court has made appropriate deductions
while determining the market value of the subject lands on the basis of
said sale instances. After having gone through the entire material on
record, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the market
value determined by Reference Court of the acquired lands.
4) However, there is substance in another objection raised by
the acquiring body as about the grant of interest under Section 34 of the
Act. As mentioned herein above, the learned Senior Counsel was fair
enough in submitting that such interest could not have been awarded by
the Reference Court. To that extent the impugned judgment, needs to
VSM
6 939 fast 5205-16 + in appeal .odt
be modified. For the reasons stated above, the following order is passed.
ORDER
1) The impugned common judgment and award
stands modified only to the extent of interest
granted under Section 34 of the Act from the
date of possession. The interest under Section
34 of the Act is made payable from the date of
award. Award be accordingly modified.
2) The appeals stand partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
(P. R. BORA)
JUDGE
VSM
