Bombay High Court
Govindrao Laxmanrao Mehatre ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
-1- F.A. 967.2014.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 967 OF 2014
APPLICANT: Govindrao Laxmanrao Mehatre,
APPELLANT Aged about 64 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
(On R.A.) Through its Power of Attorney Holder
Smt. Seema W/o Mehatre,
Aged about 38 years, Occ.: Advocate,
R/o Babhulgaon Road, Distt. Yavatmal
... Versus ...
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
RESPONDENTS the Collector, Yavatmal.
(On R.A.)
2. Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition
Officer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Yavatmal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. S.K. Paunikar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. T.H. Udeshi, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/01/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
Heard learned Advocate Mrs. S.K. Paunikar for the appellant,
learned A.G.P. Ms. T.H. Udeshi for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:23:22 :::
-2- F.A. 967.2014.jud
Advocate Shri M.A. Kadu for respondent No.3.
02] Though the matter is fixed for filing of private paper-book, instead
of filing the same, the appellant had chosen to take a chance for final
disposal of this appeal on the basis of the observations of this Court in
disposed of First Appeal No.224/2014. In that appeal, this Court has
modified the judgment of the Reference Court. The compensation was fixed
at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare. It was decided on the basis of
disposal of the earlier First Appeal No.1035/2007.
03] In this matter, the Reference Court has quantified the
compensation of Rs.2,29,000/- in lump sum. The area of the land acquired
was 3 hectares 62 Ares situated at Mauza Bhatmarg, Tq. Babhulgaon,
District Yavatmal. The appellant before the Reference Court has sought for
fixation of the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. Instead
of accepting that, the Reference Court quantified it as mentioned above for
the entire area.
04] Now, the appellant wants a decision from this Court on the basis
of the decision in First Appeal No.224/2014. Though there is a consensus
amongst both the sides about commonness in between location of the land
at Village Bhatmarg, the same Section 4 notification on 17 th December, 1998
and the nature of the land being dry crop land, it is submitted on behalf of
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:23:22 :::
-3- F.A. 967.2014.jud
the respondents that the appellant cannot be awarded interest for the entire
period.
05] It is contended on behalf of the appellant that though this Court
has observed about disentitlement of the interest while passing the order
dated 30th July, 2014, the interest may not be waived for a further period.
06] Learned Advocate Shri M.A. Kadu brought to my notice several
directions and extension of the time granted for filing private paper-book.
Whereas, on behalf of the claimant it is submitted that though the appellant
was willing to file private paper-book, it could not be filed because the
certified copies could not be obtained from the Reference Court.
07] In the synopsis, the appellant has mentioned the date of Section 4
notification as 24th April, 1998, whereas in the disposed of appeal mentioned
as 17th December, 1998. So, it is not common. It is true that in both the
matters, the land is acquired for Bembla Project. It is also true that in both
these matters the award date is same i.e. 16th June, 2001. It is also true that
in the present appeal, the land was dry crop land. So, I think that the
appellant can be given benefit of the observations in disposed of First Appeal
No.224/2014. So, I am inclined to fix the rate at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/-
per hectare.
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:23:22 :::
-4- F.A. 967.2014.jud
ENTITLEMENT INTEREST
08] It is true that the appellant is certainly not entitled for interest for
the period condoned as observed by this Court on 30th July, 2014. It is for
the period from 16th September, 2005 till 30th July, 2014. It is also true that
there are several directions given by this Court on 11th February, 2015, on
28th July, 2016, on 7th October, 2016, on 10 January, 2017, on 12 th February,
2018, on 22nd June, 2018, on 11th September, 2018, on 27th June, 2019 and
lastly on 15th November, 2019. It is also true that appeal was restored as per
the order dated 7th December, 2020.
09] It is really surprising as to how the paper-book could not be filed
for all these period due to non-obtaining the certified copy from the
Reference Court. There is a reason to believe that there is a lack of
persuasion in obtaining the certified copy. The first direction to file private
paper-book was given on 11th February, 2015. Period of six months expired
in August 2015. So, for all these period, the appellant certainly not entitled
to claim interest. But I am inclined to accept the request for not waiving the
interest at least for COVID-19 period i.e. from March, 2020 till today. It is
true that during this period, there was a lockdown and everything has come
to standstill. Hence the following order is passed.
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
-5- F.A. 967.2014.jud
ii. The award of the Reference Court is modified and the appellant
is held entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) per hectare along
with all statutory benefits.
iii. The amount be calculated considering the area of the land.
iv. The appellant will not be entitled for interest from 16 th
September, 2005 up to 30th July, 2014 and from September,
2015 up to February, 2020. Rest of the order of the Reference
Court will stand as it is.
v. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation as per
new calculation within a period of four months before the
Reference Court and then the Reference Court to disburse the
amount to the appellant.
vi. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(S.M. Modak, J.)
vijay
