The State Of Maharashtra vs Nanasaheba Dattatrya Thirthkr
2021 Latest Caselaw 6927 Bom

                                            1                                5-fa-491-03..odt

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             FIRST APPEAL NO.491 OF 2003


The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Osmanabad.                                 ...Appellant
                                                              ( Ori. Respondent )
         V/s.

Nanasaheb Dattatraya Thirthkar
age 30 yrs, occu. Agri., r/o Deolali
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.                                        ... Respondent
                                                               ( Ori. Claimant)

...
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for Appellant
...

                                                 CORAM :      ANIL S. KILOR, J.

                                                 DATE :       30th APRIL, 2021
                                           ...
ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.       The present Appeal is arising out of the Judgment and Award,
dated 27-04-1994 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division,
Osmanabad,           in    Land     Acquisition    Reference      No.     578      of    1991
enhancing         the     amount      of     compensation     from      Rs.26,404/-          to
Rs.65,400/-, towards land acquired.


2.       The land-in-question was acquired for Ruibhar Medium Project
at village Deolali, Taluka and District Osmanabad.                       The notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A.Act) was
issued on 10-09-1985 and the Award was passed on 30-03-1988.
Being dissatisfied with the amount granted by the Land Acquisition
Officer to the tune of Rs.26,404/- towards compensation, a Reference




     ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021                          ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:28:07 :::
                                     2                              5-fa-491-03..odt

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was preferred by the
claimant, in which the amount has been enhanced at Rs.65,400/-
towards compensation. The said enhancement is questioned in the
present Appeal.


3.       I have heard the learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State.
None for the respondent-claimant, though served.


4.       The learned AGP urges that the grant of enhancement is
erroneous.         He further points out that as per the Judgment of Full
Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus
Kailash Shiva Rangari1, the operative part of the order needs to be
modified as regards the grant of interest.        It is submitted that the
interest ought to have been granted from the date of award, however,
it has been granted from the date of notification under Section 4 of
LA Act.


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.


6.        There is one more reason for dismissing the Appeal and that is,
during the pendency of present appeal, the State Government has
come up with a policy decision vide Government Resolution dated
03-11-2016 and subsequent a corrigendum dated 23-02-2017 issued
in that regard, wherein it has been resolved that mere the amount
enhanced by the learned Reference Court is not more than four times
than the amount granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in
such matters, no appeal shall be filed or contested. In the present
matter, admittedly the total amount granted by Land Acquisition
1    2016 (4) All MR 513 (F.B.)




     ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:28:07 :::
                                        3                               5-fa-491-03..odt

Officer      was      Rs.26,404/-,   whereas,   it   has    been      enhanced         to
Rs.65,400/- i.e. not more than four times.


7.       Even while the matter is considered on merit and after going
through the record and proceedings and on perusing the impugned
Judgment and Award, it is revealed that in paragraph No.12 of the
Judgment, the learned Reference Court has considered valuer's report
and necessary deductions were also made as per the settled position
of law.


8.       Moreover, it is clear from the impugned Judgment and Award
that the learned Reference Court has scrutinized the oral as well as
documentary evidence and thereupon arrived at the conclusion as
regards the enhancement of compensation. No perversity has been
pointed out by the learned AGP in this matter or nothing has been
brought on record contrary to the findings given by the learned
Reference Court.             Thus, in the above backdrop, I do not find any
merit in the present Appeal.


9.       However, the interest granted by the learned Reference Court,
from the date of notification is contrary to the law laid down in the
Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailas Shiva
Rangari (supra). The interest ought to have awarded from the date
of Award. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award needs to be
modified. Accordingly, I pass the following order :-


                                       ORDER

1. The First Appeal is partly allowed.

2. The clause No. (iii) of operative part of the Judgment and Award, dated 27-04-1994 passed by the Civil Judge Senior

4 5-fa-491-03..odt

Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 578 of 1991, 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 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.

3. The Appeal is disposed of.

4. No order as to costs.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) shp/-