Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Thru ... vs Madhav Raghunath Mule on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
fa443.03
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.443 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Osmanabad.
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
Madhav S/o Raghunath Mule,
Age-32 years, Occu:Agril.,
R/o-Karajgaon, Taluka-Omerga,
District-Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. claimant)
...
Mr.B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Appellant.
Mr.A.S. Bayas Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
ORAL ORDER :
1. The present appeal is arising out of the Judgment
and award dated 24th February 1998 passed in Land Acquisition
Reference No. 196 of 1990 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:33 :::
fa443.03
2
Osmanabad, granting enhanced compensation to the tune of
Rs.30,000/- along with statutory interest.
2. The house bearing No. 112 admeasuring 174.50
square meter situated at Karajgaon, Taluka-Omerga was
acquired by the State for construction of Lower Terna Project,
Makani. The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs.30,331/-
towards total compensation, whereas it has been enhanced by
Rs.30,000/- by the Reference Court and the same is under
challenge.
3. I have heard the learned AGP appearing for the State
and learned counsel appearing for the claimant. The learned AGP
opposed the grant of Rs.30,000/- towards enhanced
compensation on the ground that the amount is exorbitant.
4. To consider the contentions raised by the learned
AGP, I have gone through the record and proceedings and also
the impugned Judgment and award. The reasoning recorded by
the learned Reference Court in Paragraph No. 6 of the Judgment
justifies grant of enhancement. In that view of the matter, I do
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:33 :::
fa443.03
3
not find any error committed by the learned Reference Court in
granting Rs.30,000/- towards enhanced compensation.
5. Moreover, there is one additional reason for dismissal
of the appeal and the same is that, now it is a Government
policy, as per the Government Resolution dated 3rd November
2016 and corrigendum issued to the same, not to file or contest
appeals wherein the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court is not more than four times than the compensation
granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the present
matter admittedly, the amount of compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court is below four times of the compensation
granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
6. Thus, for the reasons recorded herein above, I do not
find any merit in the present appeal.
7. 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
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:33 :::
fa443.03
4
as per the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari1.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal needs to be partly
allowed, as under:-
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause (iv) of the operative part of the
Judgment and award dated 24th February 1998
passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 196 of
1990 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad
is modified, and it is held that the claimant is 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
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
