Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Sitaram Madhav Garad on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 1259-2004-FA.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1259 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Osmanabad .. Appellant
Versus
Sitram Madhav Garad .. Respondent
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11376 OF 2019
...
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. R.V. Naiknaware, Advocate for the respondent
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
The present Appeal is arising out of the Judgment and Award
dated 12-02-2004 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 576 of 1991
by the learned Reference Court, enhancing the amount of compensation
for the acquired lands.
2. The acquired property in question is a house. The Section 4
Notification was issued on 16-10-1985. Thereafter, Award was passed on
30-03-1988. 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.20,879/- from Rs.13,418/-. The said
Judgment and Award is under challenge in this Appeal.
3. I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of
Maharashtra and learned counsel for the respondent-claimant.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:17:20 :::
2 1259-2004-FA.odt
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
construction cost. 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.
7. The learned Reference Court has considered the evidence of
the valuer who had applied DSR method for preparation of valuation
report to determine the cost of construction. The report is at Exhibit-30
and the valuer has deposed that the valuation of the disputed house was
Rs.32,150/-. The learned Reference Court considered that there would be
possibility of error to the extent of 20% in determining the valuation,
accordingly, 20% amount was deducted and arrived at the amount of
Rs.20,879/- 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.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:17:20 :::
3 1259-2004-FA.odt
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 Appeal/s is partly allowed as under :
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause (4) of the operative part of the impugned
Judgment and Award 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.
(IV) In view of disposal of First Appeal, pending Civil Application
stands disposed of.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
arp/-
