Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer, Medium ... vs Raosaheb Ramchandra Mustapure on 17 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA St.32927/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.32927 OF 2016
1. Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Nanded, Now Nanded
Irrigation Division
(North) Nanded under
Godawari Marathwada
Irrigation Development
Corporation Aurangabad. = APPELLANT
Acquiring Body
(Ori. Resp. No.3)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Nanded
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Nanded = CO-APPELLANTS
(Ori.R.Nos.1 & 2)
VERSUS
Raosaheb S/o. Ramchandra
Mustapure, Age: 53 years,
Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Andga, Taluka Loha,
Dist. Nanded = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
-----
Mr. B.R. Surwase, Advocate for Appellant No.1;
Mr. Kiran M. Nagorkar, Advocate for Respondent/Sole.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
17 th
July,2017.
PER COURT :
1) In view of the order passed on
application for condonation of delay, the matter
is taken up for final disposal. With consent of
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:05:30 :::
2 FA St.32927/2016
learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard
finally.
2) The challenge of the acquiring body to
the impugned judgment is limited to the extent of
interest awarded under Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). In
so far as determination of the market value is
concerned, though the learned counsel for the
acquiring body sought to canvass that the market
value was determined at the higher rate, the
objection so raised is liable to be rejected at
the threshold. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer offered the compensation @ Rs.450/- per
Are; and Rs.460/- per Are and the Reference Court
on the basis of the evidence brought before it
has enhanced it to Rs.655/- per Are. I have gone
through the discussion made by the Reference
Court in the impugned Judgment and Award. I do
not see any unreasonableness in the amount of
compensation so determined by the Reference
Court. In so far as the compensation amount
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:05:30 :::
3 FA St.32927/2016
enhanced for tress also, I do not see any reason
to cause any interference in the impugned
Judgment and Award so passed. Admittedly, the
evidence was adduced only by the claimant and no
oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced
either by the State of by the acquiring body.
The Reference Court, after having considered the
sale instances brought on record, has reasonably
enhanced the amount of compensation. There seems
no reason to cause any interference in the amount
of compensation so enhanced by the Reference
Court. However, in so far as interest awarded by
the Reference Court under Section 34 of the Act
is concerned, the same needs to be set aside in
view of Full bench Judgment of this court in the
case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari - 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. This court in
the said judgment has held that interest under
Section 34 of the Act can only be awarded from
the date of the award under Section 11 of the Act
and not from the date of possession or from the
date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:05:30 :::
4 FA St.32927/2016
In the present matter, the Reference Court has
committed an error in awarding the interest from
the date of notification under Section 4 of the
Act. Therefore, to that extent, interference is
warranted.
3) For the reasons stated above, following
order is passed, -
ORDER
i) The impugned Judgment and Award in so
far as it relates to award of interest under
Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, stands
modified and the interest under Section 34 of the
Act is made payable to the claimant from the date
of award under Section 11 of the Act, i.e. from
5th December, 1998;
ii) The award be modified accordingly;
iii) The appeal stands partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms;
iv) Pending civil application, if any,
stands disposed of.
(P.R.BORA,J.)
bdv/
