Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Girmalappa Shankarappa Chiloba on 30 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 FA 492/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
11 FIRST APPEAL NO.492 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra, Through APPELLANT
Collector Osmanabad
VERSUS
Girmalappa Shankarappa Chiloba, RESPONDENT
Age 45 years, Occupation Agriculture
and service, Resident of Murum, Tq.
Omerga, District Osmanabad
...
Mr. B.V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for the appellant-State
Mr. Bhishek D. Chapule, holding for
Mr. N.P. Patil, Adv. for the respondent
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The challenge in this appeal is to the
Judgment and Award dated 22nd April, 2002, passed by
the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in
Land Acquisition Reference No. 459 of 1997, enhancing
the amount of compensation from Rs.12,000/- per
Hectare to Rs.62,963/- per Hectare. The said
enhancement is questioned in the present Appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:30 :::
2 FA 492/2004
2. The land in question was acquired for
Benetura Medium Project. The Section 4, notification
was issued in the year 1987 and Award was passed on
17th February, 1993. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer granted Rs.12,000/- per Hectare. Being
dissatisfied with the same, reference was preferred by
the claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act. Thereunder, the Reference Court awarded amount
of compensation to Rs.62,963/- per Hectare.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
respected parties.
4. The learned A.G.P. submits that the
enhancement granted by the Reference Court is
erroneous and the amount granted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer was just and fair and, therefore,
no interference ought to have made by the reference
Court. He further points out that in view of the Full
Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra versus Kailash Shiva Rangari , reported in
2016 [4] All M.R. 513, the interest ought to have been
granted from the date of Award.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
claimant supported the impugned Judgment and Award and
prays for dismissal of the Appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:30 :::
3 FA 492/2004
6. To consider the rival contentions of the
parties, I have gone through the record and
proceedings and perused the Judgment and Order passed
by the learned Reference Court.
7. The learned Reference Court while determining
the market value, has applied the relevant factor as
per the settled principle of law and thereupon arrived
at a conclusion that the claimants are entitled for
the enhanced compensation.
8. Admittedly the reference Court has taken into
consideration the sale instances produced by the
claimant at Exh.23 and observed that the witness of
the respondent has not stated anything regardig the
market price but just deposed that compenstion awarded
is adequate. In the present appeal also, nothing has
been brought on record contrary to the finding
recorded by the learned Reference Court. Therefore, I
do not find any reason to interfere in the present
Appeal except for the reason to the extent of grant of
interest under Section 28 of the Act, in view of the
full bench Judgment of this Court in a case of Kailash
Shiva Rangari (supra).
Accordingly, I pass the following order :-
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:30 :::
4 FA 492/2004
O R D E R
1] The Appeal is partly allowed.
2] the operative part of Clause (5) of the
impugened Judgment and order is modified and
thereby interest is granted @9% per annum
from the date of Award for the first year and
for subsequent period @15% per annum.
3] No order as to costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR, J. )
SRM/30/4/21
