Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Nagrabai Tukaram Yenapatle on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
fa454.03+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.454 OF 2003
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Nanded,
2) The SLAO, PT, MIW,
Nanded.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Madhav S/o Vithoba,
Age-40 years, Occu:Agril.,
R/o-Talni, Taluka-Biloli
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Petitioner)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.415 OF 2003
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Nanded,
2) The SLAO, PT, MIW-II,
Nanded.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Nagarbai W/o Tukaram Yenapatle,
Age-50 years, Occu:Agril.,
R/o-Talni, Taluka-Biloli,
District-Nanded.
...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Petitioner)
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:30:44 :::
fa454.03+
2
...
Mr.S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Appellants in both Appeals.
None present for Respondents though served.
...
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. These are the appeals arising out of common
Judgment and award dated 15th October 1991 passed by the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Biloli in Land Acquisition Reference No.6
of 1991, Land Acquisition Reference No.7 of 1991 and Land
Acquisition Reference No.8 of 1991, enhancing the compensation
from Rs.160/- per R to Rs.325/- per R towards land acquired.
2. In these appeals, lands in question are situated at
village Talni, Taluka-Biloli, District-Nanded and the same were
acquired for the purpose of construction of Talni Dam. The
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
issued on 25th July 1985 and the award was passed on 19 th April
1989. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.160/- per
R, whereas in the Reference made by the claimants under
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:30:44 :::
fa454.03+
3
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court has
enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.325/- per R.
3. I have heard learned AGP appearing for the appellant
- State. None for the claimants.
4. The learned AGP opposed the enhancement of
amount of compensation on the ground that the same is
exorbitant. He further submits that grant of interest under
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of
possession is contrary to the Judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in a case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari1 .
5. To consider the contentions of the learned AGP, I
have gone through the record and proceedings and also perused
the Judgment and award. It is clear from the record that learned
Reference Court, while enhancing the amount of compensation,
has considered oral as well as documentary evidence available
on record and the sale instances, contrary to which nothing has
been brought on record or pointed out by the learned AGP in
these matters. In absence of any contrary evidence and more
particularly, in view of the fact that the learned Reference Court
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:30:44 :::
fa454.03+
4
has determined the amount of compensation after considering
the relevant factors as per well settled principles of law as
recorded and observed in Para 16 and 17 of the Judgment
impugned, I do not find any error committed by the learned
Reference Court in these matters.
6. Moreover, 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 the
matters relating to the acquisition proceedings 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 matters, 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. Therefore, I do not find any substance
in the contention of the learned AGP that the amount of
compensation granted by the Reference Court is exorbitant.
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 06:30:44 :::
fa454.03+
5
as per the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, (supra).
8. Accordingly, the present appeals need to be partly
allowed, as under:-
ORDER
(I) The appeals are partly allowed.
(II) The clauses (5) and (6) of the operative part of
the Judgment and award dated 15th October 1991
passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli in
Land Acquisition Reference No.6 of 1991 and Land
Acquisition Reference No.8 of 1991 are 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.
[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
asb/APR21
