State Of Mah Thr Collector Nanded ... vs Ambaji Gangaram Wannole And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 7269 Bom

                                             1                             39-FA-888-05.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 888 OF 2005

1.      The State of Maharashtra
        Through Dist Collector,
        Collectorate Nanded

2.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
        PT & MIW-II Nanded

3.      The Executive Engineer,
        Talni Medium Project,Talni
        Office, Nanded.                              ..       Appellants

                 Versus

1.      Ambaji S/o Gangaram Wannole,
        Aged 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
        R/o : Lohgaon, Tq.Biloli,

2.      Sambhaji S/o Gangaram Wannole,
        Aged 65 years, Occu. Agriculture,
        R/o : Lohgaon, Tq.Biloli.                    ..       Respondents

...
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Appellants.
Mr. G. G. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondents -Served.
...

                                                 CORAM :      ANIL S. KILOR, J.
                                                 DATE :       5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-

        The present Appeal is arising out of the Judgment and Award dated
12-04-2005 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of 2004 by the
learned Reference Court, enhancing the amount of compensation for the
acquired land.

2.               The land-in-question is acquired for the construction Talni
Medium Project at village Lohagaon, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. The
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued
on 30-09-1996. Thereafter, the Award was passed on 29-03-2000. Feeling
dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Special Land



::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2021                          ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:23:13 :::
                                           2                            39-FA-888-05.odt



Acquisition Officer, a Reference was preferred under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in which, the amount has been enhanced to
the tune of Rs.880/- per R from Rs.750/- per R. 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 appearing 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 15 of the
impugned Judgment has given justifiable reasons to arrive at market value
at the rate of Rs.88,000/- per Hectare.

8.            Nothing has been brought on record by the appellants in this
matter to show contrary or to show perversity in the findings recorded by
1    2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)




::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:23:13 :::
                                          3                             39-FA-888-05.odt



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 claimant is 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 rrd