Bombay High Court
State Of Maha And Ors vs Prakash Jalba Wanole on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 1537-2004-FA+Group.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1537 OF 2004
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Nanded
2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T. & M.I.W. - II, Nanded
3] The Executive Engineer, Medium
Project Talni Office, Nanded .. Appellant
Versus
Nilkanth Vishvanath Wanole
.. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1536 OF 2004
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Nanded
2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T. & M.I.W.-II, Nanded
3] The Executive Engineer, Medium
Project Talni Office, Nanded .. Appellant
Versus
Prakash Jalba Wanole,
Age 40 years, Occu : Agriculturist,
R/o Lohgaon Tal. Biloli,
District Nanded .. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1538 OF 2004
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Nanded
2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T. & M.I.W.-II, Nanded
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:16:04 :::
2 1537-2004-FA+Group.odt
3] The Executive Engineer, Medium
Project Talni Office, Nanded .. Appellant
Versus
Vishwanath S/o Ramji Wanole,
Age 58 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Lohgaon, Tal. Biloli,
District Nanded .. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1539 OF 2004
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Nanded
2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T. & M.I.W.-II, Nanded
3] The Executive Engineer, Medium
Project Talni Office, Nanded .. Appellant
Versus
Ramrao S/o Jalba Wanole,
Age 54 years, Occu : Agriculturist,
R/o Lohgaon, Tal. Biloli,
District Nanded .. Respondent
...
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Appellant-State
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
The present Appeals are arising out of the Judgment and
Award dated 24-03-2004 passed in Land Acquisition References No. 59 of
2004, 61 of 2004 and Judgment and Award dated 29-03-2003 passed in
LAR No. 60 of 2004 and 64 of 2004 by the learned Reference Court,
enhancing the amount of compensation for the acquired lands.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:16:04 :::
3 1537-2004-FA+Group.odt
2. The lands-in-question is acquired for the purpose of Talni
Project. The Section 4 Notification was issued on 30-09-1996. Thereafter,
Award was passed on 29-03-2000. Feeling dis-satisfied with the amount
of compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Reference was preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 in which the amount has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.900/- per
R from Rs.750/- per R. The said Judgment and Award is under challenge
in these Appeals.
3. I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of
Maharashtra.
4. The only ground challenging the impugned Judgment and
Award is that, the amount granted by the learned Reference Court is
exorbitant. It is pointed out that the interest under Section 28 of the L.A.
Act ought to have granted from the date of Award but has been granted
from the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, contrary to
Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of State of Maharashtra
Versus Kailash Shiva Rangari1.
5. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone
through the record and proceedings and also the impugned Judgment and
Award.
6. After going through the Judgment and Award, it is reveled
that the learned Reference Court has scrutinized the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record in detail, while determining the
market value. The learned Reference Court has also considered the
relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration as per the well
settled principles of law, while arriving at a just and fair compensation.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:16:04 :::
4 1537-2004-FA+Group.odt
7. The Reference Court has considered sale instances placed on
record at Exhibits-16, 17, 18 and 25 and after making the necessary
deductions and calculations, and comparative value of the said sale
instances, has arrived at Rs.90,000/- per Hectare and accordingly,
enhanced the amount which according to me is just and fair.
8. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant in this
matter to show contrary or to show perversity in the findings recorded by
the learned Reference Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
merit in the present matter.
9. Moreover, in view of the Government policy not to file or
contest appeal in the matter wherein the amount awarded by the learned
Reference Court is not more than four times than the amount awarded by
SLAO, as per Government Resolution dated 03-11-2016 and subsequent
corrigendum dated 23-02-2017 issued in that regard, I am of the view that
on this count also the appeal needs to be dismissed.
10. However, in view of the Judgment of Full Bench in State of
Maharashtra Versus Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra), operative part of the
impugned Judgment and Award needs to be modified and the interest
awarded by learned Reference Court 'from the date of taking possession of
the land' needs to be granted 'from the date of Award'.
11. Accordingly, the present Appeals are partly allowed as
under :
ORDER
(I) The Appeals are partly allowed.
(II) The operative part of the impugned Judgment and Award
5 1537-2004-FA+Group.odt
passed by the Reference Court is modified, and, it is held that
the claimants are 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 @ 9% per annum and for
the subsequent period, it would be @ 15% per annum till
realization of the entire amount of the Award.
(III) No order as to costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
arp/-
