Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah. And Anr vs Abhinandan Tukaram Chatur on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 23-FA-858-03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2003
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1231 OF 1998
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
II Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon .. Appellants
(Original Respondents)
Versus
Shri Abhinandan Tukaram Chatur,
Occu. Agri., R/o. Edlabad, Taluka Edlabad,
District Jalgaon .. Respondents
(Original Claimant)
...
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Appellants
Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent-claimant
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
PER COURT :-
The appellant- State of Maharashtra has approached to this
Court by way of present appeal challenging the Judgment and Award dated
30-01-1995 passed by the learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 254 of 1993, enhancing the
amount of compensation by Rs.47,216/-.
2. The open land and house in-question have been acquired for
II Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, District Jalgaon. The notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A.Act) was published in
Government Gazette on 12-04-1984 and the Award was declared on
21-01-1987. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was granted Rs.15/- per
Square Meter for open land and Rs.9/- per Square Meter to constructed
house, which was found to be inadequate, therefore, Reference was made
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the claimant, in
which, the amount has been enhanced to Rs.200/- per Sq.M. for open land
and Rs.37,216/- was granted towards house structure. The same is
questioned in the present appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:25 :::
2 23-FA-858-03.odt
3. I have heard learned AGP appearing for the appellants and
Mr. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant.
4. The learned AGP points out that the amount granted by the
learned Reference Court is exorbitant. Moreover, the Reference Court has
not taken into consideration the Award in its right perspective.
5. He has further pointed out that the amount of interest under
Section 28 of the L.A.Act has been granted from the date of possession,
whereas, it should have been from the date of Award as per well settled
principle of law laid down in a Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Kailash Shiva Rangari1.
6. Per contra, Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the respondent-
claimant supports the impugned Judgment and Award in this appeal and
submits that, there is no perversity committed by the learned Reference
Court while granting enhanced compensation. Whereas, he fairly states
that the operative part of the order as regards grant of interest from the
date of possession needs to be modified in view of the Judgment of Full
Bench in a case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).
7. To consider the rival contentions of learned AGP for appellant
and learned counsel for claimant, I have gone through the record and
proceedings and also perused the impugned Judgment and Award.
8. After going through the Judgment and Award, it is revealed
that the learned Reference Court has considered all the relevant factors to
consider the market value as per well settled principles of law. The learned
Reference Court has discussed oral as well as documentary evidence on
record in detail and after considering the sale instances and other relevant
factors arrived at enhanced amount of compensation. The learned
Reference Court has rightly considered the valuer's report and discussed
the same and sale instances, in paragraphs No. 7, 8 and 9 of the Judgment.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:25 :::
3 23-FA-858-03.odt
9. The learned AGP failed to point out any contrary evidence in
this matter and also failed to point of perversity in arriving at amount of
enhanced compensation.
10. The learned Reference Court has considered the location of
the land as well as the other factor namely sale instances produced by the
claimant and recorded its findings in paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of the
impugned Judgment. The learned AGP failed to point out any perversity in
the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court and also failed to
point out any contra evidence. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
merit in the present appeal.
11. However, to the extent of grant of interest from the date of
Award in view of the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra Versus Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra), I am of the
opinion that the operative part of the impugned Judgment and award
needs to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following order :-
ORDER
(I) The first appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause in regard to awarding of interest in the operative
part of the Judgment and Award dated 30-01-1995 passed by
the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in
Land Acquisition Reference No. 254 of 1993, 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 @ 9% per
annum and for the subsequent period it would be @ 15% per
annum till realization of the entire amount of the Award.
(III) The appeal is disposed of.
(IV) No order as to costs.
(V) Pending civil application stands disposed of.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
rrd
