Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Dhondiba Tukaram Shelke on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
fa775.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.775 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
Dhondiba Tukaram Shelke,
Age-Major, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Wadgaon/Chinchpur Pangul,
Taluka-Pathardi,
District-Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
...
Mr.S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Appellant.
Mr.S.L. Bhapkar Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
ORAL ORDER :
1. This is an appeal arising out of Judgment and award
dated 23rd November 1990 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Land Reference No. 34 of 1986
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:17 :::
fa775.02
2
granting enhancement to the tune of Rs.800 per R for irrigated
land and Rs.335/- per R for non-irrigated land.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties.
3. Learned AGP submits that the amount granted by the
learned reference court is exorbitant and the reference court
failed to consider the sale instances considered by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer while issuing the award.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the
claimant, supports the impugned Judgment and award.
5. After going through the record and proceedings and
on perusing the impugned Judgment and award, I have no
hesitation to hold that the learned reference court after
considering relevant factors for determining the amount of
compensation has rightly arrived at Rs.800/- per R in relation to
irrigated land and Rs.335/- per R for non-irrigated land. In
absence of any perversity in the impugned Judgment and award
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:17 :::
fa775.02
3
or in absence of any contra evidence I do not find any merit in
this matter, therefore, no interference is needed in this matter.
6. Moreover, there is no dispute that enhanced amount
of compensation is within four times than the amount awarded
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In view of the policy
decision of the State Government, as per Government Resolution
dated 3rd 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 and therefore, on
this count also, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
Judgment and award impugned in the present matter.
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
as per the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari1.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:17 :::
fa775.02
4
8. Accordingly, the present appeal needs to be partly
allowed, as under:-
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause (3) of the operative part of the
Judgment and award dated 23rd November 1990
passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Ahmednagar in Land Reference No. 34 of 1986 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.
(IV) Pending cross objection, if any, also stands disposed of.
[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
asb/APR21
