Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Babu Died L.Rs.Bhanudas And ... on 30 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 2-fa-1224-03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1224 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant
(Orignal Respondent)
V/s.
Babu s/o Deula Mete,
dead L.Rs.
1. Bhanudas s/o Babu Mete,
Age Major,
2. Nanasaheb s/o Babu Mete,
Age Major,
Both occu. Agriculture,
r/o Nimgaon Bodkha,
Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ... Respondents
(Orignal Claimants)
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S. S. Dande
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2021
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant- State of
Maharashtra, challenging the Judgment and Award, dated
03-01-2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Beed
in L.A.R. No. 573 of 1986, enhancing the amount of compensation
from Rs.11,487/- to Rs.24,421/- towards land acquired.
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:54 :::
2 2-fa-1224-03.odt
2. The land-in-question was acquired for Sina Project at village
Nimgaon (Bodkha), Taluka Ashti, District Beed. The notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A.Act) was
issued on 19-02-1981 and Award was passed on 20-07-1984. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.11,487/-, which was found to be inadequate, and therefore, a
Reference was made by the claimants, in which, additional
compensation to the tune of Rs.12,934/- for acquired land, was
awarded.
3. I have heard learned AGP appearing for the appellant.
Despite service of notice, no appearance is caused on behalf of
respondents-claimants.
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 granted from the date of award, however, it
has been granted from the date of notification under Section 4 of LA
Act.
1 2016 (4) All MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:54 :::
3 2-fa-1224-03.odt
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. From the impugned Judgment and
Award, it is revealed that, the learned Reference Court, after
scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence, has recorded
the reasons for enhancement.
6. It is clear that the enhancement has been granted after
considering the valuer's report. Nothing contrary to the same has
been pointed out by the learned AGP. Even no perversity is pointed
out and accordingly I do not find any merit in the present appeal.
7. 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 where 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
Officer was Rs.11,487/-, whereas, it has been enhanced to
Rs.24,421/- i.e. not more than four times.
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 14:27:54 :::
4 2-fa-1224-03.odt
8. 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 should have been awarded from the
date of Award. Therefore, the impugned judgment and Award is
modified. Accordingly, I pass the following order :-
ORDER
1. The Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The clause No. 3 of operative part of the Judgment and
Award dated 03/01/2000 passed by the learned 5 th
Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. No. 573 of 1986, 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/-
