The Ex. Engineer, (Agency) ... vs Sudhakar Rama Shelke
2021 Latest Caselaw 1007 Bom

                                1 [916-C.A. 854...2021 in F.A.St. 23733.2020]


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 854 OF 2021
                          IN
                     FAST/23733/2020

                    THE EX. ENGINEER, (AGENCY) K.K.V.M. DIV. AT
                    OMERGA AND ORS
                              VERSUS
                    SUNITA SHANKAR PATIL
                                  WITH
                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 858 OF 2021
                              IN
                         FAST/24759/2020

                    THE EX. ENGINEER, (AGENCY) K.K.V.M. DIV. AT
                    OMERGA AND ORS
                              VERSUS
                    SUDHAKAR RAMA SHELKE
                              ......
                    Mr. R.A.Tambe, Advocate for Applicants.
                    Ms. Laxmi Thakur, Advocate for respondent.
                               ......
                               CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA, J.
                                DATE  : 15/01/2021
                               ......

           ORAL ORDER :


           1.       The applicants have moved these applications
           seeking stay to the execution of Award.


           2.       Heard learned counsel for applicants and the
           counsel representing the claimants.


           3.       It is the contention of learned counsel for
           applicants that the Award passed by the Reference
           Court is against the settled principles of law.                    It is




::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:41:48 :::
                                           2 [916-C.A. 854...2021 in F.A.St. 23733.2020]


           contended that the land has been acquired for the
           storage tank. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has
           assessed the compensation @ Rs. 335/- per R. which
           has been enhanced to Rs. 5,466/- per R. by the
           Reference Court.                For the purpose of enhancement,
           the Reference Court has referred and relied upon the
           sale instance of 9 R. onmf land which can not be
           treated as comparable sale instance. It is submitted
           that the Award passed is contrary to law.                                      The
           enhancement               is      more       than         15      times         the
           compensation              assessed         by       the        Special       Land
           Acquisition Officer.               So also, the interest has been
           awarded from the date of notification u/s 4 of Land
           Acquisition Act, which is contrary to the Full Bench
           Decision of this Court in the case of State of
           Maharashtra V/s Kailash Shiva Rangari 2016 (3) AIR
           Bom.R. - 742. In this back-ground, learned counsel
           submits that in case if stay is not granted, then the
           purpose of filing of Appeal would be frustrated.


           4.       On         the   other       hand,      learned         counsel         for
           respondent support the Judgment of the Reference
           Court. It is submitted that in the connected matters,
           this Court stayed the execution of Award on deposit of
           compensation in terms of Award passed by the
           Reference Court.


           5.       On due consideration of submissions advanced
           in the light of the fact that enhancement is more than



::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021                               ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:41:48 :::
                                     3 [916-C.A. 854...2021 in F.A.St. 23733.2020]


           15 times of the compensation assessed by the Special
           Land Acquisition Officer and based upon sale instance
           of small piece of land, which itself hit by the
           provisions          of   the    Maharashtra          Prevention            of
           Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,
           1947 and make such transactions bad in law, I am of
           the view there is arguable case to be considered in
           Appeal.         So also the aspect of awarding of interest
           from the date of notification also needs to be
           examined in Appeal. I am, therefore, inclined to pass
           the following order.
                                          ORDER

The applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' in respective Appeals subject to deposit of amount to the extent of 50% of Award passed by the Reference Court. Failure to deposit the amount within stipulated period, the stay granted to the execution of Award stands vacated unless time is extended to deposit the amount before due date.

[V.L.ACHLIYA] JUDGE KNP