Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Yadav Digamber Abhimane Died Lrs ... on 12 March, 2018
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} fa1998-16
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1998 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
1. Ajinath Waku Abhimane RESPONDENTS
2. Laxmibai Ajinath Abhimane,
Both Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1999 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Vishnu Suryabhan Anarse RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2000 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:19 :::
{2} fa1998-16
Mohan Bajirao Abhimane RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2001 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Santram Kanhu Anarse RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2002 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Namdev Bajirao Abhimane RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2003 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:19 :::
{3} fa1998-16
VERSUS
1. Jagannath Dagadu Shende RESPONDENTS
2. Ashok Dagadu Shende
3. Sominath Dagadu Shende
All Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Rakhmaji Sakharam Shende RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2005 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Yadav Digamber Abhimane (Died) LRs RESPONDENTS
1. Smt. Anandibai Yadav Abhimane
Age - 75 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:19 :::
{4} fa1998-16
2. Ashok Yadav Abhimane
Age - 50 years, Occ and R/o As above
3. Vilas Yadav Abhimane
Age - 45 years, Occ & R/o As above
4. Laxmi Sanjay Jadhav
Age - 41 years, Occ & R/o As above
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2006 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Radhabai Govind Pacharne RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2007 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Bhamabai Eshwarlal Waghmare RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2008 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra APPELLANTS
Through - The Collector, Beed
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:19 :::
{5} fa1998-16
2. The Executive Engineer,
B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
VERSUS
Ramdas Dattoba Karande RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
District - Beed
.......
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for the appellants - State
Mr. C. K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent - claimants
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 12th MARCH, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. These first appeals are preferred by the State under
section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against common
judgment and award by Land Acquisition Reference Court at
Beed, enhancing compensation for acquisition of lands granted
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
2. Compensation granted by Special Land Acquisition Officer
for acquisition of lands ranges between Rs.590/- per Are to
Rs.650/- per Are in this group of first appeals.
3. The Reference Court has enhanced rate of compensation to
Rs.2000/- per Are for acquisition of lands.
{6} fa1998-16
4. Learned AGP contends that it cannot be said that with
reference to evidence on record, the extent of enhancement
awarded by reference court is sustainable. It is submitted that
compensation as granted by reference court is excessive and
exorbitant. Evidence on record is insufficient to bear
enhancement in compensation.
5. Mr. Phule, learned AGP appearing for appellants - the State
contends that not only that increase in rate of compensation has
been exorbitant, but the land acquisition reference court had
also been in error in granting interest under section 34 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of possession. He
submits that taking into account two decisions, one by the Full
Bench of this court in the case of "State of Maharashtra V/s Kailash
Shiva Rangari" reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and the other by
learned Single Judge of this court at Nagpur in the case of "The
State of Maharashtra V/s Ramesh Tukaram Meshram" reported on 2018 (1)
ALL MR 645 wherein it is considered that sections 28 and 34 of the
Land Acquisition Act are pari materia, the date of grant of
interest and its operation would be governed by decision of the
Full Bench. He, therefore, submits that clauses 3 and 4 of the
impugned award passed by the land acquisition reference court
has been rendered untenable.
{7} fa1998-16
6. On the other hand, Mr. C. K. Shinde, learned advocate
appearing for the respondents - claimants contends that as a
matter of fact, learned judge of the reference court has been in
error in absolutely disregarding Exhibits-21, 22, the two sale
instances of adjoining village Kada, Taluka - Ashti, District-Beed.
Had those sale instances been taken into account, the claims of
land owners as made in the reference petitions ought to have
been and could have been allowed. He further submits that while
Exhibit-23, a sale instance of 1995 has been taken into account,
the same has been given a treatment working out a lower rate of
compensation in respect of acquired lands. He submits that in
any case, compensation granted under the award impugned in
the first appeals is on lower side than is due to the claimants and
submits that there is no substance in challenge to computation
of valuation of lands.
7. Mr. Shinde goes on to submit that claimants' lands had
been taken in possession even before notification under section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued and in the
circumstances, the authorities hitherto had been constrained to
award interest from the date of possession and the same may
not be found fault with.
{8} fa1998-16
8. Having regard to aforesaid submissions, one may have to
take into account that section 4 notification for acquisition of
claimants' land had been issued on 24 th July, 2003 and the award
had been made by Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31 st
January, 2008. Sale instance at Exhibit-23 is a sale instance of
11th August, 1995, which is long before notification under section
4 had been issued in respect of acquisition of present lands. The
reference court appears to have considered value of lands with
reference to sale instance under the circumstances works out to
be @ Rs.2000/- per Are and while considering acquisition of
claimants' land rate of valuation of land should undergo 30%
reduction, since sale deed is not in respect of a land which is
immediately abutting the acquired lands. The reference court,
thereafter considered 10% increase in the rate of value of land,
as arrived at would be a reasonable increase and thus has
worked out rate of Rs.2380/- per Are and reduced the same to
Rs.2000/- per Are, since the reference court in group of other
references viz., Land Acquisition References No. 421 of 2010 and
other companion matters had worked out land acquisition rate to
be Rs.2000/- per Are for seasonally irrigated lands, which had
been acquired for construction for village tank No.6 of
Dongargan. The reference court, thus, considered that it would
{9} fa1998-16
be reasonable to grant compensation @ Rs.2000/- per Are to
present claimants as well. The court further, in some of the land
acquisition references considered that present set of claimants
are not entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of trees,
wells and stone bunds.
9. Looking at computation of land acquisition compensation
and its rate, as considered by the reference court, it cannot be
said to be in any way erroneous or for that matter there is any
other contrary evidence available on record which would impeach
rate of compensation granted by the reference court. It does not
appear that the decision rendered in respect of rate of land
acquisition compensation granted by the reference court is liable
to be disturbed. The computation appears to have been done
reasonably and taking into account evidence, as has been placed
on record. As a matter of fact, the two sale instances, Exhibit-21
and Exhibit-22 are of much higher amounts than sale instance at
Exhibit-23. In the circumstances, so far as enhancement
component involved under award under reference is concerned,
the same would not be liable to be disturbed.
10. Full Bench of this court in the case of "State of Maharashtra V/s
Kailash Shiva Rangari" reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 under
{10} fa1998-16
paragraphs No. 32 clause (iii) and 33 (a) of said judgment has
held as under -
" 32. (iii) Where the possession of the land under acquisition is taken
prior to issuance of notification under section 4 (1), then there would be
no question of invoking the urgency clause under section 17 of the said
Act and the interest under section 34 shall start running from the date of
passing of the award.
33. In view of above, we answer the question of reference as under:
(a) If the possession is taken before the notification under section 4
(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published and / or before the award is
passed, the landowner would be entitled for interest as per section 34
necessarily from the date of passing of the award under section 11 of the
said Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance
with section 17 of the said Act and in that situation only, the provision of
section 34 of the said Act shall start operating from the date of
possession. "
11. Further, learned Single Judge of this court at Nagpur in the
case of "The State of Maharashtra V/s Ramesh Tukaram Meshram" reported
on 2018 (1) ALL MR 645 has held that sections 28 and 34 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1893 are pari materia. They are identical
with exception of stage. Section 28 relates to interest on
enhancement whereas section 34 deals with interest on award
by special land acquisition officer / collector.
12. As such, as far as interest in present matters directed from
the date of possession is concerned which is although sought to
be justified on behalf of the claimants, yet do not appear to be in
a position of any other prevailing position of law in this respect
and overcome decision of full bench and the subsequent decision
{11} fa1998-16
(supra), the direction and date of award of interest will have to
undergo modification, pursuant to full bench judgment (supra).
13. In the circumstances, clauses 3 and 4 of the operative
order under decision in land acquisition references will have to
undergo modification in tune with the full bench judgment and
as such, the interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, payable to the claimants would be from the date
of award and not as observed by the reference court, from the
date of possession.
14. With the modification to aforesaid extent, first appeals
stand partly allowed and rest of the challenge in the first appeals
stand dismissed.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/fa1998-16
