The State Of Maharashtra ... vs Bhagwan Apparao Dhone And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 6811 Bom

                                                                   fa430.03
                                        1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        FIRST APPEAL NO.430 OF 2003


 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Collector, Parbhani,

 2) The Spl. Lnd Acq. Officer, PT & IT,
    (Purna Project), Kalamnuri,
    M.K.V. Parbhani.
                                                    ...APPELLANTS
                                                (Orig. Respondents)
        VERSUS

 1) Bhagwan S/o Apparao Dhone,
    Age-59 years, Occu:Agri.,

 2) Gyanrao S/o Apparao Dhone,
    Age-54 years, Occu:Agri.,

 3) Kanbarao S/o Apparao Dhone,
    Age-44 years, Occu:Agri.,

 4) Narayan S/o Apparao Dhone,
    Age-35 years, Occu:Agri.,

 All of above R/o-ganjapur
 now at Taroda, Tq-Kalamnuri.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

                 ...
    Mr.B.V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for Appellants.
    None present for Respondents though served.
                 ...




::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:14 :::
                                                                          fa430.03
                                         2


                CORAM:         ANIL S. KILOR, J.

                 DATE :        28th APRIL, 2021


 ORAL ORDER :


 1.               The State Government byway of present appeal, is

 raising challenge to the Judgment and award dated 11 th

 December 1990 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 138 of

 1985 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli.



 2.               The house in question was situated in Kalamnuri

 Taluka of Parbhani District and in Pusad Taluka of Yeotmal

 District. The same was acquired for construction of dam. The

 Special Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs.22,321/- towards

 total compensation, which has been enhanced to Rs.64,730/- by

 the impugned Judgment and award.



 3.               I have heard learned AGP for the State. None for the

 claimants.



 4.               Learned AGP opposed the enhancement of amount of

 compensation on the ground that it is exorbitant and further the




::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:14 :::
                                                                   fa430.03
                                     3


 Reference Court has erroneously granted compensation per

 square meter.



 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 learned

 Reference Court while determining the amount of compensation,

 has considered all the relevant factors as per the well settled

 position of law and thereupon granted Rs.64,730/- towards the

 enhanced compensation. Learned AGP failed to point out any

 contrary material in this matter. In the circumstances, I do not

 find any merit in the appeal.



 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




::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:57:14 :::
                                                                       fa430.03
                                        4


 this count also,          I do not find any reason to interfere with the

 Judgment and award impugned in the present matter.



 7.               Thus, for the reasons recorded herein above, I do not

 find any error committed by the learned Reference Court in this

 matter.



 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 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 11th December 1990 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 138 of

1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)

fa430.03

1985 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli is modified, 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.

(IV) Pending civil applications are also disposed of.

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

asb/APR21