Bombay High Court
Shivmurti Mahadappa Tikambare ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2021
Bench: V.L. Achliya
(1) ca2752.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
922 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2752 OF 2020
IN FA/1083/2019
SHIVMURTI MAHADAPPA TIKAMBARE THR LRS
BHAGIRATHBAI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Mr. M. L. Dharashive, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A. A. Jagatkar, AGP for the respondent/State
CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J.
DATE : 20-01-2021
P. C.
. The applicant/claimant has moved this application
seeking withdrawal of amount deposited by the appellant acquiring
body.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/claimant and
the learned AGP representing the appellant.
3. Mr. Jagatkar, AGP opposed the application with
contention that the enhancement of compensation by the reference
court is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @
Rs. 155/- per R has been enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- per R i.e. more
than fifteen times the compensation assessed by the Special Land
1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:21:48 :::
(2) ca2752.20
Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that for the purpose of
enhancement of compensation the reference court has relied upon
the sale instance of small piece of land adm. 20-R i.e. purchased for
commercial use. The land acquired was an agricultural land. It is
situated far away from the main road. While assessing the
compensation the reference court also not considered the deduction
to be made towards development of the land if converted for non-
agricultural use. So also, the interest has been awarded from the
date of notification/ possession of land which is contrary to the full
bench decision of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs
Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J.457.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the
applicant/claimant supports the judgment and award passed by the
reference court. It is submitted that the applicant is waiting from
the last 20 years to receive the compensation of land acquired for
public purpose. The land in question was acquired for rehabilitation
of earthquake affected person. In that view, the approach of the
reference court to determine the compensation by keeping in mind
the non-agriculture use of the land cannot said to be perverse. It is
further submitted that the husband of the applicant died during the
pendency of appeal. The applicant is about 70 years of age. It is
her legitimate expectation to receive the compensation during her
life time and urged to allow applicant to withdraw the entire amount
deposited by the acquiring body.
2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:21:48 :::
(3) ca2752.20
5. On due consideration of the submissions advanced and
challenge raised in the appeal, I am of the view that the application
deserves to be partly allowed. It is not disputed fact that the land
has been acquired for rehabilitation of earthquake affected persons
and used for residential use. The acquisition of land for
rehabilitation itself sufficient to draw inference that the land in
question suitable for residential use and it had non agriculture
potential. In that view the approach of the reference court to
determine the compensation by considering its use for non-
agriculture purpose was based upon evidence adduced in the case.
However, it appears that while determining the compensation the
reference court has not considered the deduction to be made on
account of development of agriculture land into non-agriculture use.
So also, the enhancement is more than fifteen times the
compensation assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
6. Considering the challenge raised in the appeal, I am of
the view the order in following terms would meet ends of justice:
ORDER
i. The applicant is permitted to withdraw the amount
to the extent of 60% deposited amount on furnishing
undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial)
with condition that in the event the award is set aside or
modified the applicant shall re-deposit the amount
within eight weeks from the date of such order.
3 of 4
(4) ca2752.20
ii. After making payment to the extent of 60% of
amount deposited, the balance amount shall be
invested in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank
initially for a period of two years with standing
instructions to renew the investment till further orders
from this court.
iii. The amount be paid by transferring the amount in
the savings bank account as per the particulars of
account to be furnished by the applicant.
iv. No amount to be paid to the person other than
the applicant including the power of attorney holder of
applicant.
v. Withdrawal of amount shall be subject to final
outcome of the appeal.
vi. The application is disposed of in above terms.
[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ]
VishalK/ca2752.20
4 of 4
