Bombay High Court
The Ex. Engineer, Irrigation ... vs Ankush Ganpati Pawar (Died) Thr ... on 8 February, 2021
Bench: V.L. Achliya
1211.21CA.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
9 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2021
IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.22844 OF 2020
...
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT, STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA
VERSUS
ANKUSH GANPATI PAWAR THROUGH L.Rs.
ANNAPURNA & OTHERS
...
Mr.Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the
applicant-appellant.
Mr.L.C.Patil, Advocate for the respondent
Nos.1A to 1D - claimants.
Mr.A.A.Jagatkar, AGP for the respondent nos.2
and 3-State.
...
CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA,J.
DATE : 08.02.2021
P.C.
1] The applicant-appellant has moved
this application seeking stay to the
execution of the award on the ground raised
in appeal.
2] In brief, it is the contention of
the applicant-appellant that the award passed
by the Reference Court is not sustainable in
law. The compensation awarded by the
Reference Court is without any basis. It is
submitted that the SLAO has awarded the
compensation of the land acquired @
Rs.1,10,000/- per hector. The Reference Court
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 21:37:46 :::
1211.21CA.odt
2
has enhanced the same @ Rs.3,40,000/- per
acre, by relying upon the sale instance of 7
R. of land, which cannot be treated as
comparable sale instance. It is submitted
that under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation
of Holdings Act, there is prohibition for
sale of the fragment of the land and any
transaction made in violation of the
provisions of the said Act, is illegal, void
and cannot be acted in law. In that view, the
Reference Court erred in relying upon the
sale instance of 7 R. of land to form basis
to enhance the compensation. It is submitted
that the interest u/s. 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act has been awarded from the
date of possession, which is contrary to the
Full Bench decision in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs.Kailash Shiva Rangari,
reported in 2016 [3] Mh.L.J. 457. In this
background, learned counsel submits that
applicant - appellant has good case to
succeed in appeal. In case the execution of
the award is not stayed, the purpose of
filing of appeal would be frustrated.
3] On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondents - claimants support the
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 21:37:46 :::
1211.21CA.odt
3
judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court. It is submitted that appeal filed by
the applicant - appellant is devoid of
merits. The land has been acquired way back
in the year 2004. The respondents are
deprived of legitimate compensation for more
than 15 years. It is submitted that the
enhancement is based upon due assessment of
the evidence adduced in the case.
4] Considering the submissions advanced
in the light of challenge raised in appeal, I
am of the view that the award passed by the
Reference Court deserves to be stayed subject
to deposit of the amount to the extent of 60%
of the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court. Hence the following order :
ORDER
1] The application is allowed.
2] There shall be interim relief in
terms of prayer clause-A subject to deposit
of the amount to the extent of 60% of the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court
within 12 weeks from the date of passing of
the order.
1211.21CA.odt
3] Failure to deposit the amount within
stipulated period, stay granted stands
vacated without further reference to the
Court unless time is extended before due date
to deposit the amount.
4] Civil Application is disposed of in
above terms.
[V.L.ACHLIYA]
JUDGE
DDC
