Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Bhanudas Rajaram Polawar on 30 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 FA 670/2004 with 822/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
15 FIRST APPEAL NO.670 OF 2004
[1] The State of Maharashtra, Through APPELLANTS
the Collector, District Nanded
[2] The Special Land Acquisition Ofcer,
Pazar Talao, M.I.D., No.2, Nanded
[3] The Executive Engineer, Medium
Project, Jangamwadi, Nanded
VERSUS
Bhanudas s/o Rajaram Polawar, Age RESPONDENT
52 years, Occupation Agriculture
Resident of Chandola, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded
...
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for the appellants-State
Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the respondent
...
W I T
16 FIRST APPEAL NO.822 OF 2004
[1] The State of Maharashtra, Through APPELLANTS
the Collector, District Nanded
[2] The Special Land Acquisition Ofcer,
Pazar Talao, M.I.D., No.2, Nanded
[3] The Executive Engineer, Medium
Project, Jangamwadi, Nanded
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:29:00 :::
2 FA 670/2004 with 822/2004
Satish s/o Jejerao Gaikwad, Age RESPONDENT
minor under guardianship of Sow.
Satyabhamabai W/o Jejerao Gaikwad,
Age 40 years, Occupation Agriculture
& household, R/s Chandola, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded
...
Mr. B.V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for the appellants-State
Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the respondent
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Both these Appeals are filed by the State
against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 31st
October, 2003, passed in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos. 180 of 2000 and 163 of 2000 enhancing the
compensation in the reference filed under Section 18
by the respondents/claimants.
2. The lands in question were acquired for the
Minor Irrigation Project at village Chandola, Taluka
Mukhed, District Nanded. Section 4 Notification was
issued on 17th September, 1998 and Award was passed on
15th May, 2000 granting Rs.570/- per R in First Appeal
No.670 of 2004 and Rs.530/- per R in the First Appeal
No.822 of 2004, which has been enhanced to Rs.72000/-
per Hectare in First Appeal No. 670 of 2004 and
Rs.68,000/- per Hectare in First Appeal No. 822 of
2004, by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:29:00 :::
3 FA 670/2004 with 822/2004
References filed by the applicants on being
dissatisfied with the amount granted by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer under its Award.
3. I have heard the learned A.G.P. for the
appellant and learned counsel Mr. Chincholkar on
behalf of the respondents.
4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for
the claimants that the amount granted by the learned
Reference Court is within 4 times of the amount
granted by the SLAO and, therefore, as per the
Government Resolution dated 3rd November, 2016, it has
been decided by the Government that if the enhancement
is within four times of the amount granted by the Land
Acquisition Officer, no Appeal shall be filed or
contested.
5. Apart from the said ground, even on merit,
after going through the record and proceedings and
after perusing the impugned judgment and Award, I do
not find any perversity in the findings recorded by
the learned Reference Court as per the oral as well as
documentary evidence placed on record. It is pertinent
to note that no oral and documentary evidence was
produced on behalf of the appellant before the
reference Court. Moreover, the reference Court has
specifically observed in the impugned Judgment that
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:29:00 :::
4 FA 670/2004 with 822/2004
the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered all
the sale instances of the relevant period whle
determining the market value of the land in question.
Thus, I am of the opinion that the reference Court has
rightly granted enhancement considering the
documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the
claimants.
6. Nothing has been shown contrary to the
findings of the trial Court and, in that view of the
matter, I do not find any error committed by the
learned Reference Court in granting enhancement in
these matters.
7. However, the operative part of the impugned
Judgment and order needs to be modified in view of the
judgment of Full Bench in the case of State of
Maharashtra versus Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in
2016 (4) All M.R. 513. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
following order :-
O R D E R
[1] Both appeals are partly allowed.
[2] The operative part (5) of the impugned
Judgments and awards is modified and thereby
interest is granted @ 9% per annum from the
5 FA 670/2004 with 822/2004
date of Award for the first year and for
subsequent period @ 15% per annum.
[3] No order as to costs.
[4] Civil Application No. 8105 of 2005 filed in
First Appeal No. 670 of 2004 and Civil
Application No.8103 of 2005 filed in First
Appeal No. 822 of 2004 are accordingly
disposed of.
( ANIL S. KILOR, J. )
SRM/30/4/21
