State Of Mah vs Mrs Sakharbai Gangaram Potphde & ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 569 Bom

                                                                       FA 777/05   
  
                                     -  1 -



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD                                        

                                         
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO.777 OF 2005  


                 1.The State of Maharashtra,
                   Through Honourable Collector,
                   Ahmednagar.

                 2.The Executive Engineer,
                   (Mula Project Division),
                   Upper Pravara Canal Division,
                   Ahmednagar.                   ...Appellants...
                                            ( Orig.Respondents)

                       Versus


                 1.Smt. Sakharbai w/o Gangaram
                   Potphode, age 45 years,   

                 2.Ashok Gangaram Potphode,
                   age - 24 years,

                 3.Dhananjay Gangaram Potphode,
                   age - 22 years,

                 4.Pappunana Gangaram Potphode,
                   age - 12 years,

                 5.Sangeeta D/o Gangaram Potphode,
                   age : 15 years,

                   Nos. 4 and 5 minors through 
                   their minor guardian - mother-
                   applicant No.1.

                 6.Lahu Babu Potphode,
                   age : 37 years,




     ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018             ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:28:38 :::
                                                                           FA 777/05   
  
                                        -  2 -

                 7.Smt. Punjabai Babu Potphode,
                   age - 85 years,

                 8.Smt. Asarabai Mohan Marked,
                   age - 55 years,

                 9.Sau. Tulsabai Sonyabapu Aher,
                   age - 50 years,

                   All Agriculturists, Nos.1 to 7
                   residing at Amrapur, Taluka
                   Shevgaon, District - Ahmednagar.

                   No. 8 R/o Madhi, Taluka Pathardi,
                   Dist. Ahmednagar.

                   No. 9 R/o Bhatkudgaon, Taluka
                   Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.

                                                    ...Respondents...
                                                    (Orig.Claimants) 
                                                                     
                          .....
Shri K.N. Lokhande, AGP for appellants.
Shri M.R. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 6, 8 
and 9.
Appeal is abated as per as against respondent nos.1 & 7 
as per Registrar's order dated 7.7.2009. 
                          .....
  
                           CORAM: M.S. SONAK, J. 

DATE: 17.01.2018

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1] Heard learned AGP for the appellants and

Mr.M.R.Sonawane, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2

to 6, 8 and 9. Appeal as against respondent nos.1 and 7

is abated vide Registrar's order dated 7.7.2009.

FA 777/05

- 3 -

2] Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated

4.12.2004 made by the Reference Court enhancing the

compensation in respect of the acquired land from

Rs.370/- per Are to Rs.750/- per Are.

3] Learned AGP for the appellant submits that there

was no evidence on record to sustain such enhancement.

He submits that the Reference Court has granted interest

at the rate of 9% p.a. with effect from 1.9.1982 when in

fact the Section 4 notification in this case was issued

on 21.1.1993. He submits that the authorities under the

Land Acquisition Act can only award interest from the

date of Section 4 notification and not earlier. He

submits that there is no proper evidence on record to

indicate that the possession of the acquired land was

taken at any stage prior to the issuance of Section 4

notification.

4] Learned counsel for the respondents points out

that the appeals against identical awards have already

been dismissed by this Court. He points out that the

total compensation amount awarded in this case hardly

comes to Rs.11,020/-. He submits that the impugned award

is based upon the material on record and, therefore, this

FA 777/05

- 4 -

Court may not interfere with the same.

5] From perusal of the material on record, it is

quite clear that the impugned award is supported by

evidence. Accordingly, there is no necessity to

interfere with the impugned award particularly since

appeals against virtually identical awards have already

been dismissed.

6] That apart, the entire compensation amount

involved in this appeal is hardly of Rs.11,020/-.

Enhancement is well within the limits prescribed by the

State Government in its Government resolution dated

3.11.2016. In terms of this Government resolution where

the enhanced amount is less than four times ready

reckoner rate prevalent on the date of issuance of

Section 4 notification, the Government or its

instrumentalities have resolved not to pursue such

appeals.

7] Although there may be some substance in the

contention of the learned AGP as regards the award of

interest, in the peculiar facts of the present case and

taking into consideration the paltry amount involved,

there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award.

FA 777/05

- 5 -

8] This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

9] In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil

Application No.9377/2005 does not survive and is disposed

of as such.

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

ndk/c171182.doc