Rambhau Rajaram Khodke (Dead) ... vs The State Of Maharashtra,Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3622 Bom

WP  5648/15                                           1                             Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 5648/2015
1.    Rambhau Rajaram Khodke (Dead)
      Through LR Lakshman S/o Rambhau Khodake,
      Aged about 58 years.
2.    Sitaram S/o Rambhau Dolas,
      Aged about 45 years.
3.    Gaibi S/o Kundlik Khodke (Dead)
      Through LR Ramkor Gaibi Khodke,
      Aged about 50 years.
4.    Shankar S/o Laxman Gavai,
      Aged about 50 years.
5.    Motiram S/o Rambhau Dolas,
      Aged about 45 years.
6.    Vishwanath S/o Malhari Khodke,
      Aged about 60 years.
7.    Dinkar S/o Madhukar Kankal,
      Aged about 35 years.
All are Cultivators by Occupation,
R/o Kaulkhed, Tq. Lonar, Distt. Buldana.                                     PETITIONERS

                                     .....VERSUS.....

1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      through the Secretary,
      Department of Assistance and 
      Rehabilitation, Mantralaya,
      Mumbai-32.
2.    Divisional Commissioner,
      Amravati Division, Amravati.
3.    The Collector, Buldana,
      District - Buldana.
4.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
      Minor Irrigation Division, Buldana,
      District - Buldana.                                                         RESPONDENTS

                     Shri K.S. Narwade, counsel for the petitioners.
          Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.


                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

                                       DATE        :            27  TH           JUNE,     2017.



 WP  5648/15                                         2                           Judgment

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the

State Government to pay interest on the amount of rehabilitation

compensation from the date of the decision of the State Government to

grant the same, dated 20.09.2010 till the amount was actually paid to the

petitioners on 30.10.2014.

2. The petitioners were the agriculturists holding the lands in

village Kaulkhed. The land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired

for the purpose of submergence of Borkhedi dam along with several other

land holders. The section 4 notification was published on 16.03.2006 and

the section 6 notification was published on 22.03.2007. The award was

passed by the special land acquisition officer on 30.03.2009. Since

according to the petitioners, the compensation awarded to them was very

meager and a lot of time and energy could be spent in filing the

proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for

enhancement of compensation, as per Government Resolution, dated

15.12.1983, the petitioners offered to receive the rehabilitation

compensation by giving up their right to file reference application under

Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The claim of the petitioners was accepted

by the State Government and an order in that regard was passed on

20.09.2010. The State Government agreed to grant rehabilitation

compensation to the petitioners and the amount payable to each of the

WP 5648/15 3 Judgment

petitioners towards rehabilitation compensation was also determined.

Since the amount of rehabilitation compensation was not paid to the

petitioners while the same was paid to some others, the petitioners filed

Writ Petition No.5833 of 2013 seeking a direction against the State

Government to grant rehabilitation compensation to the petitioners as per

the order dated 20.09.2010. The said writ petition was partly allowed

and the State Government was directed to pay the amount that was due

and payable to the petitioners within a time frame. This Court had made

it clear that the acceptance of the amount or interest by the petitioners

would not preclude the petitioners from approaching this Court with a

proper grievance. It is the case of the petitioners that after the writ

petition was disposed of by the order dated 04.02.2014, the State

Government released the rehabilitation compensation in favour of the

petitioners on 30.10.2014. The State Government, however, did not pay

any interest on the delayed payment of rehabilitation compensation.

Since the petitioners were granted liberty to approach this Court in

respect of their grievance, the petitioners have again approached this

Court for a direction against the State Government to pay interest to the

petitioners on the delayed payment of rehabilitation compensation.

3. Shri Narwade, the learned counsel for the petitioners,

submitted that the petitioners had given up their valuable right of filing

the reference in view of the policy of the State Government, in the

WP 5648/15 4 Judgment

Government Resolution dated 15.12.1983 and had agreed to accept the

rehabilitation compensation. It is submitted that the rehabilitation

compensation - award was passed on 20.09.2010 and the amount that

was liable to be paid to each of the petitioners towards rehabilitation

compensation was also determined. It is stated that the State

Government, however, delayed the payment of rehabilitation

compensation on the pretext that excess amount was paid to some other

land holders and complaints in that regard were being decided. It is

submitted that the adjoining land holders that had filed the reference

proceedings have received compensation at the rate of Rupees Three

Lakhs per hectare. It is submitted that the petitioners have received much

lower amount than the other land holders whose lands were acquired by

the same section 4 notification and the State Government has also not

paid any interest on the delayed payment of rehabilitation compensation

to the petitioners. It is submitted that the action on the part of the State

Government of not paying interest on the delayed payment of

rehabilitation compensation is extremely arbitrary. It is submitted that a

direction be issued to the State Government to pay interest on the amount

of rehabilitation compensation at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents, submitted that after the award was passed

in favour of the petitioners, the compensation for the acquired land was

WP 5648/15 5 Judgment

paid to them. It is submitted that in December-2009, it was found by the

land acquisition officer that 76 land holders were entitled for

rehabilitation compensation. It is submitted that several complaints were

received from the agriculturists, including the petitioners that some of the

land holders were granted huge amount towards compensation though

they were not entitled to the same, as per the award. It is submitted that

the complaints of the agriculturists were decided and a fresh proposal was

submitted by the land acquisition officer on 22.05.2014 to the office of

the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati for payment of rehabilitation

compensation. It is submitted that a final draft award was sent to the

office of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 12.06.2014. It is

submitted that since the compensation for the acquisition of the land was

paid to the petitioners after the passing of the award in the year 2009,

liability cannot be fastened on the State Government to pay interest to the

petitioners on the delayed payment of rehabilitation compensation. It is

submitted that on 03.07.2014, the State Government demanded the

amount payable to the petitioners towards rehabilitation compensation

from the acquiring body and after it was received, the amount was

disbursed in favour of the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government

Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find

that the action on the part of the State Government in delaying the

WP 5648/15 6 Judgment

payment of rehabilitation compensation to the petitioners and not

paying interest to them is clearly arbitrary. The State had acquired

the lands of the petitioners in terms of the award passed in the year

2009. In pursuance of the policy of the State Government in the

Government Resolution dated 15.12.1983, the petitioners and the

government entered into an agreement by which the petitioners gave up

their right to file a reference application under Section 18 or an

application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and

the government agreed to pay rehabilitation compensation to the

petitioners for giving up of their right to file a reference. Though a

decision in this regard was taken on 20.09.2010 and the amount

payable to each of the petitioners towards rehabilitation compensation

was determined, the State Government did not release the rehabilitation

compensation to the petitioners till 30.10.2014. There is an inordinate

delay in payment of rehabilitation compensation to the petitioners.

It is informed to this Court that the other land holders that had filed

reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 have received

compensation at the rate of Rupees Three Lakhs per hectare, whereas

the petitioners have received compensation at the rate between

Rs.61,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per hectare. Though we may note that this

cannot be an aspect which could be considered by this Court while

deciding the correctness or otherwise of the action of the State

Government in delaying the payment of rehabilitation compensation

WP 5648/15 7 Judgment

to the petitioners, it would be necessary to mention that the petitioners

had a right to receive the rehabilitation compensation within a reasonable

time from the date of rehabilitation compensation award - decision

dated 20.09.2010. Merely because there were some complaints in regard

to the payment of excess compensation to some others with which the

petitioners have no concern, as there were no complaints received against

the petitioners, the State Government unnecessarily delayed the payment

of rehabilitation compensation to the petitioners for more than four years.

It was expected of the State Government to have acted fairly and to have

released the rehabilitation compensation to the petitioners at the earliest,

specially when there were no complaints against the petitioners that they

had claimed or received the compensation in excess of the amount

determined by the award. In the circumstances of the case, the

petitioners would be entitled to interest on the rehabilitation

compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decision

of the State Government, i.e. from 20.09.2010 till the amount was

actually disbursed to the petitioners on 30.10.2014.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest to the

petitioners on the amount of rehabilitation compensation at the rate of

12% per annum with effect from 20.09.2010 till 30.10.2014 within two

months.

WP 5648/15 8 Judgment

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

              JUDGE                                    JUDGE

APTE