Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharshtra. And ... vs Ghansham Piraji on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
fa404.03+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.404 OF 2003
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Nanded,
2) The SLAO, UPP No.1, Nanded.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Ghanshyam s/o Piraji
Age-50 years, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Baradshevala,
Tq-Hadgaon, District-Nanded
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.416 OF 2003
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Nanded,
2) The SLAO, UPP No.1, Nanded.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Rangrao s/o Shamrao Maske
Age-25 years, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Baradshevala,
Tq-Hadgaon, District-Nanded
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:21 :::
fa404.03+
2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.543 OF 2003
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Nanded,
2) The SLAO, UPP No.1, Nanded.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Vithal s/o Shamrao,
Age-55 years, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Baradshevala,
Tq-Hadgaon, District-Nanded
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
...
Mr.S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Appellant.
Ms.Nirmala K. Helkute Advocate h/f. Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy
Advocate for Respondents in First Appeal Nos. 404 of 2003
and 543 of 2003.
None present for Respondent in First Appeal No.416 of 2003,
though served.
...
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
ORAL ORDER :
1. These are the appeals arising out of common
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:21 :::
fa404.03+
3
Judgment and award dated 13 th April 1994 passed by the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos. 29 of 1991, 100 of 1992, 30 of 1991, and 32 of 1991,
enhancing the compensation from Rs. 252 per R to Rs. 452/-
per R towards land acquired.
2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. Learned AGP appearing for the appellants opposed
the grant of Rs. 452/- per R on the ground that it is contrary to
the record and the same is exorbitant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents - claimants supports the Judgment and award
impugned in the appeals and prays for dismissal of the appeals
on the ground that there is no perversity in the impugned
Judgment and award.
5. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:21 :::
fa404.03+
4
have perused the record and proceedings and also the Judgment
and award impugned in these appeals.
6. Learned Reference Court while enhancing the
compensation, has considered all the relevant factors and oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record, whereas the
learned AGP failed to point out any contrary evidence to show
that amount determined by the learned Reference Court is not
just and fair but exorbitant. In absence of any contrary evidence
available on record, I do not find any error committed by the
learned Reference Court while granting Rs. 452 per R towards
enhanced compensation.
7. Moreover, in view of the policy decision of the State
Government, as per Government Resolution dated 3 rd November
2016 and corrigendum issued to the to the same, whereby it was
resolved not to file or contest any appeal wherein the amount is
well within four times. In the present matters, admittedly, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs. 252/- per R
whereas it has been enhanced by the Reference Court to
Rs. 452/- per R, which is well within four times. Thus, I do not
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:21 :::
fa404.03+
5
find any merit in the contention of the learned AGP that the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant.
8. However, the Judgment and award requires to be
modified to the extent of the amount of interest under Section
28 of the Land Acquisition Act which is granted from the date of
possession, whereas it should have been from the date of award
as per the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari1.
9. Accordingly, the present appeals need to be partly
allowed, as under:-
ORDER
(I) The appeals are partly allowed.
(II) The clauses in respect of granting interest under
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, from the
date of possession, of the operative part of the
Judgment and award dated 13th April 1994 passed by
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Land
Acquisition Reference No. 100 of 1992, Land
Acquisition Reference No. 30 of 1991, and Land
Acquisition Reference No. 32 of 1991 are modified,
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
fa404.03+
and it is held that the claimants are entitled for the
interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, from the date of Award. For the first year the
interest would be at the rate of 9% per annum and
for the subsequent period it would be at the rate of
15% per annum till realization of the entire amount
of the Award.
(III) No order as to costs.
[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
asb/APR21
