Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Gyandeo Nana Khartude And Anr on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 29-FA-1583-04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1583 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector, Osmanabad. .. Appellant
(Original Respondent)
Versus
1. Gyandeo s/o. Nana Khartude, Age 65 years,
2. Waman s/o. Dnyanoba Khartude, Age 37 years,
Both Occu. Agri. and R/o. Lanjeshwar,
Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad. .. Respondents
(Original Claimants)
...
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Appellant
Mr. V. S. Bedre, Advocate for Respondents-claimants
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
The present Appeal is arising out of the Judgments and Awards
dated 09-09-2002 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 327 of 1997
by the learned Reference Court, enhancing the amount of compensation
for the acquired land, fruit bearing trees and a well .
2. The land, fruit bearing trees and a well in-question are
acquired for Dokewadi Medium Project of Lanjeshwar, Taluka Bhoom,
District Osmanabad. The notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 11-04-1991. Thereafter, the Award
was passed on 28-02-1996. Feeling dis-satisfied with the amount of
compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, a Reference
was preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in
which, the total amount has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.1000/- per R
from Rs.400/- per R towards acquired land and also awarded Rs.400/- per
R. per tree towards Pomegranate trees. The said Judgment and Award is
under challenge in this Appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:20:30 :::
2 29-FA-1583-04.odt
3. I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of
Maharashtra and Mr. V. S. Bedre, learned counsel for the respondents-
claimants.
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.
7. The learned Reference Court has considered 'E' Statement of
the Award at Exhibit-19 for determining the value of Pomegranate fruit
bearing trees and found that amount awarded by Land Acquisition Officer
was inadequate and fixed the market value @ Rs.400/- per tree.
8. For the purpose of determining the market value of the land,
the land sold by one vendor Ambadas Deshmukh was considered and
further after considering the fertility of the land of the claimants, the rate
under said sale instance at Exhibit-21 and value of the well of said
Ambadas Deshmukh, the Reference Court has arrived at a conclusion as
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:20:30 :::
3 29-FA-1583-04.odt
market value of acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per Acre, which is just and
fair according to me.
9. 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.
10. Moreover, in view of the Government policy not to file or to
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.
11. 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'.
12. Accordingly, the present Appeal is partly allowed as under :
ORDER
(I) The first appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The clause in regard to awarding of interest in 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.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
mtk
