Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra ... vs Radhesham Omkardas Agrawal on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 21-FA-831-03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jalgaon. .. Appellant
(Original Respondent)
Versus
Radheshyam Omkardas Agrawal,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. .. Respondent
(Original Claimant)
...
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Appellant.
Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
The appellant- State of Maharashtra has approached to this
Court by way of present appeal, challenging the Judgment and Award,
dated 16-03-1991 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 57 of 1986, enhancing the
amount of compensation from Rs.250/- per R. to Rs.750/- per R.
2. The land-in-question in this appeal is situated at village
Shirsale, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon and owned by the respondent-
claimant. The said land was acquired for the construction of percolation
tank at Shirsala.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:31:11 :::
2 21-FA-831-03.odt
3. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (L.A.Act) was published in Government Gazette on 24-06-1976 and
Award was declared on 17-03-1983.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation
to the tune of Rs.19,941/-, which was found by him to be inadequate by
the claimant, and therefore, Reference was made by him, in which, the
amount was enhanced to Rs.1,53,000/-.
5. I have heard learned AGP appearing for the appellant and
Mr. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant.
6. The learned AGP submits that the amount enhanced by the
learned Reference Court is exorbitant and the learned Reference Court has
committed error in not considering the case of Land Acquisition Officer in
its right perspective.
6.1 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.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:31:11 :::
3 21-FA-831-03.odt
7. On the other hand, Mr. Bora, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant supports the impugned Judgment and Award 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).
8. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone
through the record and proceedings and also perused the impugned
Judgment and Award. From the Judgment and Award, it is revealed that
the learned Reference Court after scrutinizing the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record and also after considering the relevant
factors as well as well settled principles of law has arrived at the amount of
enhanced compensation.
9. 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.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:31:11 :::
4 21-FA-831-03.odt
10. 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 appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause in regard to awarding of interest in the operative
part of the Judgment and Award dated 16-03-1991 passed by
the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Land
Acquisition Reference No. 57 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 @ 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.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
rrd
