Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Munja Raoji Alase on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
fa436.03
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.436 OF 2003
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Parbhani,
2) The Spl. Land Acq. Officer,
Purna Project, Kalamnuri.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Munja S/o Raoji Alse,
Age-50 years, Occu:Agril.,
R/o-Gadibori, Tq-Kalamnuri,
District-Parbhani.
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Petitioner)
...
Mr.S.S. Dande Advocate for Appellants.
None present for Respondent though served.
...
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
ORAL ORDER :
1. The present appeal is arising out of the Judgment
and award dated 7th September 1990 passed by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Hingoli in Land Acquisition Reference No. 307 of
1984.
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:10 :::
fa436.03
2
2. The house No. 66 owned by the claimant was
acquired by the State. The total area of the house was 93.69
square meter and out of the same 85.93 square meter was built
up area and rest of the area was open space. The house was
acquired for the purpose of sub-merger under Isapur dam Upper
Penganga Project, village Gadi - bori, Taluka - Kalamnuri.
3. In the award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has
granted Rs.4874.34/- towards total compensation. The learned
Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation to the tune
of Rs.10,000/-.
4. I have heard the learned AGP, who opposed the grant
of Rs.10,000/- towards enhanced compensation on the ground
that the amount is exorbitant.
5. To consider the contentions raised by the learned
AGP, I have gone through the record and proceedings and also
perused the impugned Judgment and award. The reasoning
recorded by the learned Reference Court in Paragraph Nos. 14
and 15 of the Judgment justifies grant of enhancement. In that
view of the matter, I do not find any error committed by the
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:10 :::
fa436.03
3
learned Reference Court in granting Rs.10,000/- towards
enhanced compensation.
6. Moreover, there is one additional reason for dismissal
of the appeal and the same is that, 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. In the present matter,
admittedly the amount of compensation granted by the
Reference Court is well within four times than the compensation
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
7. Thus, for the reasons recorded herein above, I do not
find any merit in the present appeal.
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.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:10 :::
fa436.03
4
9. Accordingly, the present appeal needs to be partly
allowed, as under:-
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause (5) of the operative part of the
Judgment and award dated 7th September 1990
passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli in
Land Acquisition Reference No. 307 of 1984 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 civil applications are also disposed of.
[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
asb/APR21
