The G.M.I.D.C., Thr The Ex. ... vs Nagnath Tulsiram Rajguru
2021 Latest Caselaw 6138 Bom

                                            1                           695-2020-944

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2020

The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Through the Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad                                          .. Appellant
                                                        (Orig. Respondent no.2)
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Osmanabad                                 .. Co-Appellant
                                                         (Orig. Respondent no.1)
      VERSUS
Nagnath S/o Tulsiram Rajguru,
Age : 64 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o Patoda,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad                                         .. Respondent
                                                            (Orig. Claimant)
                                               ...
                      Mr. Ranjit B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the appellant
                         Mr. V.V. Ingale, Advocate for the respondent
                                               ...

                                        CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
                                        DATE : 06-04-2021
ORDER :

1. The challenge raised in the present Appeal is to the common

Judgment and Award dated 27-08-2012 passed by the 3 rd Joint Civil Judge

Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR no. 300 of 2002 and LAR no. 246 of

2002, granting enhanced compensation @ Rs.1000/- per R for the acquired

land.

2. The land in question was acquired by the appellant - Acquiring

Body for the purpose for Wadala tank. In the Award declared by the SLAO,

Rs.210/- per R was granted whereas the same has been enhanced to

2 695-2020-944

Rs.1000/- per R vide impugned Judgment and Award dated 27-08-2012.

The correctness of the same is questioned in the present Appeal.

3. I have heard learned Counsels for the respective parties.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant points out

that the learned reference Court has wrongly granted interest under section

28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of notification i.e. 25-03-1993

instead of from the date of Award as per the Full Bench Judgment of this

Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari1.

5. It is submitted that the amount granted towards enhancement

was erroneously granted without considering the case of the Acquiring

Body.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

claimant concede to the extent of grant of interest under section 28, from

the date of Award and not from the date of notification.

7. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the claimant

that the amount granted by the learned Reference Court i.e. Rs.1000/- per

R is almost 4 times of the amount granted by the SLAO and, therefore, as

per the Government Resolution dated 03-11-2016, it has been decided by

the Government that if the enhancement is within four times of the amount

granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Appeal needs to be withdrawn

by the Acquiring Body.

1     2016(4) All.M.R. 513




                                           3                          695-2020-944

8. To consider the contentions of the parties, I have perused the

record. It is revealed from the record that the learned Reference Court after

scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record,

has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the compensation needs to be

enhanced at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.1000/- per R. Nothing

has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant - Acquiring Body

as regards perversity in arriving at the said conclusion and determining the

enhanced compensation by the Reference Court. Thus, I do not find any

error committed by the learned Reference Court in granting Rs.1000/- per

Are towards enhanced compensation.

9. As regards, the interest granted by the Reference Court under

section 28, it is settled position of law that interest under section 28 shall be

granted from the date of Award. Admittedly, in the present matter, the

interest is granted from the date of notification i.e. 25-03-1993. In that

view of the matter, the Judgment and Award is modified to the effect that

the interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894, shall be granted from the

date of Award and it shall be @ 9% per annum for first year and, thereafter,

it shall be @ 15% per annum for subsequent years till realization of the

amount.

10. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

[ ANIL S. KILOR ] JUDGE arp/