Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Venkatrao Champatrao on 19 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
fa45703.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.457 OF 2003
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Nanded
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
UPP No. 1, Nanded Appellants
Versus
Venkatrao s/o Champatrao
age 31 years, occ. agri.,
r/o Barad Shevala
Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded Respondent
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, AGP for appellants.
Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Heard Mr.Lokhande, learned A.G.P. for appellants and
Mrs.Chincholkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2 The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and
award dated 13.04.1994, by which the Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.237/- per Are to
Rs.450/- per Are. The Reference Court has also ordered payment
of interest from 04.06.1982 to 03.06.1983 @ 9% p.a. and from
05.06.1983 to 28.02.1989 @ 15% p.a.
{2}
fa45703.odt
3 Mr.Lokhande, learned A.G.P., points out that there was
no evidence on record to sustain any enhancement. He points out
that the sale deed, on which reliance is placed by the Reference
Court, relates to different village. He further points out that
Section 4 Notification was issued on 06.11.1987 and, therefore,
taking into consideration decision of the Full Bench of this Court
in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari,
2016 (4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.), the Reference Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in awarding interest for the period prior to 06.11.1987.
On this ground, Mr.Lokhande submits that the enhancement
awarded is liable to be set aside.
4 Mrs.Chincholkar, learned Counsel for respondent-
claimant, submits that the sale deed relied upon by the Reference
Court relates to adjoining village. She submits that it was not even
the case of the appellant-State that the sale instances from the
same village were available. She submits that the sale instance
relied upon by the Reference Court was a comparable sale instance
and is rightly relied upon by the Reference Court.
5 Insofar as award of interest is concerned,
Mrs.Chincholkar points out that there is evidence on record to
show that possession of the acquired land was taken in the year
1982 itself, though, Section 4 Notification came to be issued in the
year 1987. She points out that interest amount, in this case,
hardly comes to Rs.1432/- and Rs.13050/-. She submits that for
such paltry amount, the appeal may not be allowed. She submits
that it will be harsh and inequitable to require the claimant, at this
point of time, to refund amount of around Rs.15,000/-.
{3}
fa45703.odt
6 Mrs.Chincholkar further points out that the
enhancement made in the present appeal is well within the limits
prescribed by the State Government itself in Government
Resolution dated 03.11.2016. Accordingly, she submits that the
State Government ought not to have even pursued such appeal
taking into consideration the rate of enhancement and the paltry
amount involved. For all these reasons, Mrs.Chincholkar submits
that the appeal may be dismissed.
7 There is no case made out to disturb the rate awarded
by the Reference Court. The Reference Court has raised the
enhancement on the basis of sale instance in respect of land sold
from nearby village. The Reference Court came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence that sale instances from the same village
were available but were not produced. Nothing prevented the State
Government from producing such sale instances if same were
available. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the enhancement
granted by the Reference Court from Rs.237/- to Rs.450/- per Are.
8 Insofar as issue of interest prior to the date of Section
4 Notification i.e. prior to 1987 is concerned, Mr.Lokhande, learned
A.G.P., is right in his submission that such interest could not have
been awarded by the Reference Court since, this position has been
clarified in the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash
(supra). However, for the period between 04.06.1982 to 03.06.1983,
the Reference Court has awarded interest of Rs.1432/- and
thereafter for the period between 05.06.1983 to 28.02.1989 interest
of Rs.13050/- has been awarded. This includes interest for
{4}
fa45703.odt
approximately two years post Section 4 Notification dated
06.11.1987. This means that towards interest component, hardly
an amount of Rs.10,000/- or thereabout has been awarded to the
respondents-claimants way back in the year 1994. Taking into
consideration quantum, there is really no necessity to interfere
with the impugned award after clarifying the legal position.
9 It is necessary to point out that the enhancement, in
the present case, is well within the limits prescribed by the State
Government itself in Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016, as
amended from time to time. The Government Resolution dated
03.11.2016 records a policy decision of the State Government not to
institute appeals or to settle already instituted appeals where
compensation awarded by the Reference Court is less than four
times the compensation prevalent as per the Ready Reckoner rates
on the date of issue of Section 4 Notification. Generally, the
compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
corresponds to the ready reckoner rates prevalent on the date of
issue of Section 4 Notification. In effect, therefore, the Government
Resolution dated 03.11.2016 records policy decision of the State to
settle the matters where enhanced compensation is less than four
times the rate determined by the SLAO, where such rate broadly
corresponds to the ready reckoner rates. This formula applies to
the lands located in rural areas. Since, the land, which form
subject matter of present appeal, was located in rural area, there is
no dispute that it is this formula, which will be applicable to the
present appeal.
10 In the present matter, as noted earlier, the SLAO had
{5}
fa45703.odt
determined compensation at the rate of Rs.237/- per Are. The
Reference Court has determined compensation at the rate of
Rs.450/- per Are. This is well within the limits prescribed under
the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016. Accordingly, this
appeal can be disposed of in terms of the State's own policy as set
out in Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016. However, since
the learned A.G.P. had no written instructions for withdrawal of
appeal, the matter was heard on merits and is disposed of.
11 For the aforesaid reasons, after clarifying with regard
to award of interest, this appeal stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(M.S. SONAK)
JUDGE
adb/fa45703
