Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Madan Namdeo Takale on 30 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 901 FA 1926/16 and others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1926 OF 2016
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (L.S.),
Beed. ... Appellants
VERSUS
1. Thanaji s/o Pralhad Tekale,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Chinchpur, Tq. And Dist. Beed.
2. Ashok s/o Pralhad Tekale,
Age : Major, Occu. And
R/o.: As above. .... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1925 OF 2016
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (L.S.),
Beed. ... Appellants
VERSUS
1. Sharad s/o Kailas Tekale,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Chinchpur (Ghat), Tq. and
Dist. Beed.
2. Sandeep s/o Kailas Tekale,
Age : Major, Occu. and R/o.:
As above. ... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:11:40 :::
2 901 FA 1926/16 and others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1927/2016
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (L.S.),
Beed. ... Appellants
VERSUS
Kakasaheb s/o Rambhau Satpute,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Chinchpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ... Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1928/2016
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (L.S.),
Beed. ... Appellants
VERSUS
1. Deelip Kishan Satpute,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Chinchpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. Kanta Kishan Satpute,
Age : Major, Occu. & R/o.: As above.
3. Madan Kishan Satpute,
Age : Major, Occu. & R/o.: As above.
4. Yeshwanta Kishan Satpute,
Age : Major, Occu. & R/o.: As above.
5. Santosh Kishan Satpute,
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:11:40 :::
3 901 FA 1926/16 and others
Age : Major, Occu. & R/o.:
As above. ..... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1929/2016
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (L.S.),
Beed. ... Appellants
VERSUS
Madan Namdeo Takale,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Chinchpur, Tq. & Dist.
Beed. .. Respondent
...
Advocate for the appellants : Shri D. R. Kale, AGP.
Advocate for the respondents : Shri C. K. Shinde, Adv.
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : June 30, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel of the parties.
2. The State has filed the present appeals
challenging the common judgment and award dated
29.04.2008 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-1 at Beed in
Land Acquisition Reference No. 419/2006 with four other
connected Land Acquisition References.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:11:40 :::
4 901 FA 1926/16 and others
2. The lands which are the subject matter of the
present appeals were acquired for the construction of
percolation tank at Chinchpur, Tq. Ashti, District Beed. In
the acquisition proceedings the land acquisition officer had
offered the compensation to the claimants at the rate of
Rs.750/- to Rs.785/- per Are. The Reference Court has
enhanced the amount of compensation by determining the
market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1,500/-
per Are.
3. Though, the learned AGP assailed the impugned
award on the ground of determination of market value on
higher side, on perusal of the judgment it does not appear
to me that the Reference Court has committed any error in
determining the market value of the acquired lands at the
rate of 1500/- per Are. Moreover, it was also informed
during the course of arguments by learned AGP himself
that in few earlier matters out of the same acquisition, this
Court has declined to cause any interference in the amount
of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court in the
said matters. Learned AGP submitted that in the said
matters also the compensation was enhanced by the
Reference Court by determining market value of the lands
acquired in the said matters at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per
Are.
4. Learned AGP disputed the impugned award
further on the ground that the Reference Court has
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:11:40 :::
5 901 FA 1926/16 and others
committed an error in awarding interest under Section 34
of the Act from the date of possession. Learned AGP
submitted that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this
court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas
Shiva Rangari reported in 2016(4) ALL MR 513 the
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as said Act) can only be awarded
from the date of award and not from the date of
possession. Learned AGP submitted that in the earlier
similar matters this Court has set aside the awards
impugned in the said appeals by directing modification to
the aforesaid extent. Learned AGP tendered copy of the
order passed by this court on 24 th November, 2016 in First
Appeal No. 1824/2016 and submitted that the present
matters can also be disposed of on similar lines.
5. Shri. C. K. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for
the respondents i.e. original claimants, submitted that in
earlier matters also he has represented the original
claimants. He, therefore, submitted that the present
appeals also can be decided on similar lines.
6. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra), the
interest under Section 34 of the Act can only be awarded
from the date of award under Section 11 of the Act and not
from the date of possession. The impugned common
award, therefore, needs to be modified to that extent.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:11:40 :::
6 901 FA 1926/16 and others
7. In view of the above, the following order is
passed.
ORDER
1. The common judgment and award impugned
in the present appeals so far as it relates to
grant of interest under Section 34 of the Act
from the date of possession stands modified
to the effect that such interest shall be payable
from the date of award under Section 11 of the
Act.
2. The other part of the award is maintained as it
is.
3. The appeals stand partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
(P.R. BORA)
JUDGE
vsm
