Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra ... vs Rajaram Ganpat Banbkar on 30 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 FA 1409/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
6 FIRST APPEAL NO.1409 OF 2003
The Special Land Acquisition Ofcece APPELLANT
M.I.W. Jalgaon
VERSUS
Rajacam Ganpat Banbkace Age 40 yeacse RESPONDENT
Occupation Facmece Resident of Pahuce
Taluka Jamnece Distcict Jalgaon
...
Mc. S.S. Dandee A.G.P. foc the appellant-State
Mc. A.B. Kalee Advocate foc the cespondent
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The appellant has filed this Appeal
challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the II
Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, dated 26th
April, 2000 in Land Acquisition Reference No.223 of
1998 granting enhancement of compensation to the
respondent.
2. The land in question was acquired for the
purpose of M.I. tank, Gogadi-Nala, Taluka Jamner,
District Jalgaon. The Award was passed on 30th June,
1992 and respondent had been granted amount of
compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. The
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:50 :::
2 FA 1409/2003
respondent-applicant filed on record Land Acquisition
Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and thereby prayed for enhancement of amount
of compensation.
3. After going through the Judgment and Award,
it is revealed that the learned reference Court after
scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence
available on record in detail, enhanced the amount of
compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- per H and the same is
challenged in the present appeal.
4. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the
appellant/State and learned counsel Mr. A.B. Kale for
the respondent/sole-claimant.
5. Learned A.G.P. for the appellant/State states
that the impugned Judgment and order is erroneous as
the compensation granted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer was just and fair and, therefore,
no interference ought to have made by the reference
Court.
5.1 Learned A.G.P. further submits that as per
the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra versus Kailash Shiva Rangari
reported in 2016 (4) All MR 513 and now it is well
settled that the interest under Section 28 of the Land
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:50 :::
3 FA 1409/2003
Acquisition Act shall be granted from the date of
award. It is submitted that, in this matter, the
interest has been granted from the date of possession,
which is contrary to the above referred judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent supports
the impugned Judgment and Award and, states that,
there is no merit in the present appeal and,
therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
7. To consider the rival contentions of the
rival parties, I have gone through the record and
proceedings and also perused the impugned Judgment and
Award.
8. The record shows that the learned Reference
Court while granting enhancement of compensation has
scrutinized the oral as well as documentary evidence.
It is pertinent to state that the learned reference
Court has considered the sale instances, more
particularly, sale instance dated 24th June, 1991 in
which the land was sold @ Rs.1,45,161/- per hectare,
however, considering the distance between the land
acquired in this matter, the reference Court came to
the conclusion that the payment of compensation would
be @ Rs.1,25,000/- per H for jirayat land and
Rs.2,50,000/- per H for bagayat land.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:50 :::
4 FA 1409/2003
9. Learned A.G.P. for the appellant-State is
unable to point out any perversity in the findings
recorded by the learned Reference Court and also
failed to point out the counter evidence to say that
the learned Reference Court has committed error in
granting enhancement of compensation.
10. In view of the matter, I do not find any
merit in the present Appeal. 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 (supra), and accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following order :-
O R D E R
[1] Appeal is partly allowed.
[2] The clause (6) of the operative part of the
impugned judgment and Award dated 26th April,
2000 is modified to the extent "from the date
of Award" in place of "from the date of
possession", as has been granted by the
learned Reference Court.
[3] Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR, J. )
SRM/30/4/21
