State Of Maha vs Narayan Jejerao Gaikwad
2021 Latest Caselaw 7281 Bom

                                         1                             26-FA-671-04.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         FIRST APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2004
                    WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8104 OF 2005
1.      The State Government of Maharashtra
        Through The Collector, District Nanded.
2.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
        Pazar Talao, M.I.D. No.2, Nanded.
3.      The Executive Engineer,
        Medium Project, Jangamwadi, Nanded.               ..     Appellants
                                                          (Original Respondents)
                  Versus
Narayan s/o. Jejerao Gaikwad,
Age 19 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Chandola, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded.                                          ..       Respondent
                                                               (Original Claimant)
...
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellants
Mr. G. N. Chicholkar, 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
31-10-2003 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 167 of 2000 by the
learned Reference Court, enhancing the amount of compensation for the
acquired land.

2.               The land in-question is acquired for Minor Irrigation Project
at Village Chandolsa, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded. The notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 17-09-
1998. Thereafter, the Award was passed on 15-05-2000.                   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.780/- per R from Rs.630/- per R. The said Judgment
and Award is under challenge in this Appeal.



::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:20:10 :::
                                           2                            26-FA-671-04.odt




3.                I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of
Maharashtra and Mr. G. N. Chincholkar, learned counsel for the
respondent-claimant.

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. 17 of the
impugned Judgment has observed that, the appellant has not produced
any documentary evidence as well as oral evidence on record in support of
its case. The learned Reference Court, accordingly, after considering the
situation of the land and sale instances has arrived at the conclusion and
awarded compensation at Rs.78,000/- per Hectare (Rs.780/- per R),
which is just and fair.

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




::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:20:10 :::
                                          3                             26-FA-671-04.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 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.

(IV) Pending civil application stands disposed of.

( ANIL S. KILOR ) JUDGE mtk