Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Dada Mhapa Borude And Others on 24 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
fa192216.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1922 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra Appellant
Versus
Bhaguji Khendke (deceased),
through legal heirs:
01 Dilip Bhaguji Khendke,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
02 Balasaheb Bhaguji Khendke,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Mandavgan, Tq.Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1923 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra Appellant
Versus
01 Dada s/o Mhapa Borude,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Mandavgan, Tq.Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar.
02 Rajaram s/o Dadu Borude,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o as above.
03 Keru s/o Dadu Borude,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o as above. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:23:40 :::
{2}
fa192216.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.23454 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra Appellants
Versus
01 Kashinath Madhav Borude,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
02 Laxman Kashinath Borude,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
03 Balbhim s/o Kashinath Borude,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
04 Arjun s/o Kashinath Borude,
age: major, Occ: Agril.,
All R/o Mandavgan,
Tq.Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar. Respondents.
Mr.B.V.Virdhe, A.G.P. for appellant
Mr.Sachin Salgare, advocate holding for Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate
for Respondents
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 24th January, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Learned Counsel for the parties point out that
F.A.St.No.23454/2015, which is also a part of this group, is,
however, not on board today. Therefore, with the consent of
learned Counsel for the parties, F.A. St. No.23454/2015, though
not on board, is taken on board for disposal along with rest of the
First Appeals. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that all these
appeals can be disposed of finally by a common judgment and
{3}
fa192216.odt
order since, they arise out of one and the same notification for
acquisition.
3 In all these matters, the appellant-State is challenging
the impugned judgment and award by which the amount of
compensation has been enhanced from Rs.550/- per Are to
Rs.2000/- per Are. In addition to this, the Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation in respect of trees and awarded
Rs.20,000/- and Rs.8000/- respectively for good and medium
quality mango trees, Rs.3000/- for bor trees and Rs.7000/- for
tamrind trees. The Reference Court has also granted interest
under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of
possession i.e. from 1992, when, in fact, Section 4 notification was
issued on 01.08.1996.
4 Mr.Virdhe, learned A.G.P. submits that the
enhancement is based on no material. He submits that there is no
material to support this enhancement either for land or trees. He
relies on Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.), to submit that
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has to
be awarded only from the date of award and not from the date of
possession. The award under Section 11 is made on 30.12.1997.
For all these reasons, he submits that the appeals be allowed and
the enhancement and interest granted by the Reference Court be
quashed and set aside.
5 Mr.Salagare, learned Counsel holding for
Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for Respondents-claimants, submits that
{4}
fa192216.odt
there is more than ample evidence on record. In fact, the
Reference Court has relied upon its earlier award in
L.A.R.No.570/2003 in which, compensation at enhanced rate came
to be awarded. On the aspect of interest under Section 34, he
submits that since the possession was taken in the year 1992,
there is no reason to deprive the claimants from the said benefit.
6 The Record and Proceedings were called for and have
been perused. From the impugned judgment and award, it does
appear that the Reference Court has based the enhancement on
the basis of earlier award in L.A.R. No.570/2003, which, again, is
an award in relation to very same acquisition. Therefore, it cannot
be said that there was no evidence or reason to order
enhancement. The compensation awarded towards trees is also
well within the bounds. There is no case made out to interfere
with the enhancement.
7 Apart from the aforesaid, 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,
{5}
fa192216.odt
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 appeals, was
located in rural area, there is no dispute that it is this formula,
which will be applicable to the present appeals.
8 In the present matter, as noted earlier, the SLAO had
determined compensation at the rate of Rs.550/- per Are. The
Reference Court has determined compensation at the rate of
Rs.2000/- per Are. This is well within the limits prescribed under
the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016. Accordingly, these
appeals 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
appeals, the matter was heard on merits and is disposed of.
9 For the aforesaid reasons, there is no case made out
for interference with the enhancement in respect of land and trees.
10 So far as aspect of interest under Section 34 is
concerned, however, these appeals will have to be partly allowed.
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash (supra) has
held that the claimants can be awarded interest under Section 34
of the said Act from the date of award under Section 11, unless it is
shown that possession is taken earlier in accordance with Section
{6}
fa192216.odt
17 of the Act. In this case, Section 17 was never invoked.
Therefore, the award of interest from the date of taking of
possession, as directed in clause (7) of the operative portion of the
impugned award will have to be set aside or rather modified.
11 These appeals are accordingly partly allowed and
disposed of by following order:
(A) The appeals, to the extent they question enhancement
of compensation for land and trees, are hereby
dismissed.
(B) The appeals, to the extent they question award of
interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of
possession, are hereby partly allowed. Interest under
Section 34 of the Act, in all these cases, will have to be
determined from the date of award dated 30.12.1997.
(C) The impugned award stands modified accordingly.
12 There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Civil
Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.
M.S.SONAK
JUDGE
adb/fa193216
