Bombay High Court
The Collector,Yavatmal & Another vs Chandrashekhar Kondopant ... on 6 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 280 of 2005
Appellants : 1) The Collector, Yavatmal
2) The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-
Divisional Officer, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal
versus
Respondent : Chandrashekhar Kondopant Papinwar, aged
about 65 years, Occ: Farmer, resident of New
Pusad, District Yavatmal
Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants
Shri K. S. Narwade, Advocate for respondent
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 6th September 2017
Oral Judgment
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order
dated 30.4.2004 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 185 of 2003 by
the Additional District Judge, Pusad.
2. Heard Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for appellants and Shri K. S. Narwade,learned counsel for the
respondent. I have gone through the record of the case including the
impugned award.
3. The following points arise for my determination:
(1) Whether the finding of the Reference Court regarding
determination of the market value of the acquired land requires any
interference ?
(2) Whether the finding of the Reference Court on the point of
additional component and interest under Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act requires any interference ?
4. Sofar as the first point is concerned, I must say that it has
been squarely answered in the judgment rendered by this Court in cross
appeal being First Appeal No. 702 of 2004 filed by the respondent herein
and which was decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20 th
February 2017 (brother Chandurkar, J). The said appeal was partly
allowed by this Court and then this Court declared that the respondent
was entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre for the
acquired land and after making 33% deduction from the said amount.
This judgment having attained finality, now the answer to the 1 st point
would have to be given in the negative and it is so given.
5. About the second point involved in this appeal, I am of the
view that the settled position of law would impel this Court to make
interference in the finding recorded by the Reference Court as regards the
grant of additional component and interest under Section 34 of the Act.
The additional component @ 12% per annum could not have been
granted from the date of possession and ought to have been granted from
the date of Section 4 notification published in the official gazettee on
11.5.1999. Similarly, the interest under Section 34 of the Act could not
have been granted by the Reference Court as this power is conferred upon
the Land Acquisition Officer. Interest under Section 28 of the Act was
also required to be given for one year from the date of award dated
10.3.2000 and not from the date of possession . So, these findings require
suitable modification to be done by this Court. The 2 nd point is answered
accordingly.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed only to the extent of
modification of the impugned award in the following terms :-
(1) The additional component granted by the Reference Court
shall be from 11.5.1999 i.e. the date on which Section 4 notification was
published in the official gazettee till the date of award i.e. 11.10.2001.
(2) The interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is
granted @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of award i.e.
11.10.2001 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the actual realization.
(3) No interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is
admissible to the respondent and, therefore, grant of such interest by the
Reference Court as reflected in clause (G) of the operative portion of the
impugned judgment, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(4) Rest of the Award is confirmed in terms of the judgment and
order of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 702 of 2004 on 20 th
February 2017, referred to above.
(5) Parties to bear their own costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
