State Of Maha vs Narsu Gunda Mane And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 7252 Bom

                                             1                           24-FA-574-04.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2004

The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad                                ..     Appellant
                                                            (Original Respondent)
     Versus

1. Narsu Gunda Mane, Age 30 years,
2. Bhima Hariba Kaldate, Age 23 years,
Both Occu. Agri., R/o. Bhiganwadi,
Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad.                        ..       Respondents
                                                                 (Original Claimants)
...
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. K. J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for Respondents-claimants
...
                                         CORAM :      ANIL S. KILOR, J.
                                         DATE :       5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-

         The present Appeal is arising out of the Judgment and Award dated
03-03-2003 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 382 of 1991 by the
learned Reference Court, enhancing the amount of compensation for the
acquired lands.


2.       The land, two wells and four tals in-question are acquired for
construction of Irrigation Tank at Tirth, Taluka Tuljapur, District
Osmnabad. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, was issued on 16-07-1987. Thereafter, the Award was passed on
02-10-1989. 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.2,51,000/- from
Rs.1,83,492/- (Rs.1,35,000/- + Rs.48,492/-) towards acquired land, two
wells and four Tals. The said Judgment and Award is under challenge in
this Appeal.



::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                        ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:20:02 :::
                                           2                            24-FA-574-04.odt



3.                I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of
Maharashtra and Mr. Ghute-Patil, 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 in paragraph No. 9 of the
impugned Judgment has considered the sale deed (Exhibit-63) dated
15-04-1986, which is executed prior to one year of notification under
Section 4 of the L.A. Act dated 16-07-1987. The said land was sold for
Rs.5,000/- and located at a distance of 1 km. from acquired land. The
learned Reference Court has observed that said sale instance can be relied
upon for determining the market price of the acquired land of the
claimants, and accordingly, the land-in-question must receive Rs.12,500/-
per Acre, which according to me is just and proper.

1    2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)




::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:20:02 :::
                                          3                             24-FA-574-04.odt



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 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.

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 is partly allowed as under :
                                     ORDER

(I) The 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