Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Namdeo Bhaurao Deshmukh on 30 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 18-FA-1207-04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1207 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Osmanabad ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
Namdeo Bhaurao Deshmukh,
Age : 55 years, Occup. Agril.,
R/o Devalali, Tq & Dist. Osmanabad
(Died) L.R's.
1. Sagar S/o Namdeo Deshmukh,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o: Deolali, Tq & Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Limbraj S/o Namdeo Deshmukh,
Age : 40 yrs, Occu. & R/o As above.
3. Sanjabai W/o Namdeo Deshmukh
Deceased ) L.Rs.
3A) Sagar Namdeo Deshmukh,
3B) Limbraj S/o Namdeo Deshmukh,
3C) Rukhamin Bhanasur Deshmukh,
3D) Satyabhama Pandurang Deshmukh,
All R/o Deolali, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
... RESPONDENTS
(Original Claimants)
...
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for appellant-State
Mr. R.V. Naiknaware, Advocate for respondents No 1 & 2
Appeal is dismissed as against respondents No. 3C and 3D as per order of
this Court dated 07-05-2013.
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 30th 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 12th February, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 584 of 1991,
enhancing the amount of compensation towards acquisition of house and
open space.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:28:52 :::
2 18-FA-1207-04.odt
2. The house along with open space 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 (Act of 1894) was published in Government Gazette on 16-10-1985
and accordingly Award was declared. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.24,426/-. Being dissatisfied with
the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference has
been made under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 by the claimants, in which
the amount has been enhanced to Rs.27,879/-.
3. I have heard learned AGP appearing for the appellant and
Mr. Naiknaware, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-
claimants.
4. The learned AGP submits that the compensation amount
granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was fair and just and
ought not to have interfered.
5. Learned AGP has pointed out that the amount of interest
under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 has been granted from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, whereas, it should have
been granted 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.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Naiknaware, learned Counsel appearing
for the claimants supports the impugned Judgment and Award and
submits that there is no perversity committed by the learned Reference
Court while granting enhanced compensation.
7. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone
through the record and proceedings and also perused the impugned
Judgment and Award.
8. 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 per
the well settled principles of law has arrived at the amount of enhanced
compensation.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:28:52 :::
3 18-FA-1207-04.odt
9. The learned Reference Court has considered the location of
the land as well as the other factor namely sale instances produced by the
claimants. 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 contrary evidence. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
merit in the present appeal.
10. Moreover, in view of the Government policy not to file or
contest appeal in the matter wherein the amount awarded by the learned
Reference Court is not more than four times than the amount awarded by
SLAO, as per Government Resolution dated 03-11-2016 and subsequent
corrigendum dated 23-02-2017 issued in that regard, I am of the view
that on this count also the appeal needs to be dismissed.
11. 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 in
that regard needs to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following order
as under :-
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause No.4 in regard to awarding of interest in the
operative part of the Judgment and Award, dated 12 th
February, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 584
of 1991, is modified, and, it is held that the claimants are
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
mtk
