Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Pandurang Baburao Patil on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 1055-2003-FA+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2003
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] Spl. Land Acq. Officer III, Jalgaon .. Appellant
Versus
Shri Pandurang Baburao Patil .. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1056 OF 2003
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] Spl. Land Acq. Officer III, Jalgaon .. Appellant
Versus
Shri Keshav Ragho Patil died LRs. and another .. Respondents
...
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for the respondents in both FA
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
The present Appeals are arising out of the Judgment and
Award dated 18-10-2001 passed in Land Acquisition References No. 204
of 1993, 205 of 1993 and 211 of 1993 by the learned Reference Court,
enhancing the amount of compensation for the acquired lands.
2. The lands-in-question is acquired for the purpose of Hatnur
Canal Upper Tapi Project. The Section 4 Notification was issued on
05-03-1987. Thereafter, Award was passed on 04-03-1989. 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.733/- per R from Rs.290/- per R. The said Judgment and Award is
under challenge in these Appeals.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:18:33 :::
2 1055-2003-FA+.odt
3. I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of
Maharashtra and 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 after considering the evidence
available on record, held that the land in question is bagayat land and not
jirayat land. The learned Reference Court has considered the 7/12 extract
which was not challenged by the appellant herein wherefrom it was
revealed that the claimant was cultivating perennial crops by irrigating the
acquired land by well water. The Court has also observed that there is
evidence to show that well was there prior to date of notification and after
considering the necessary evidence oral as well as documentary,
determined the market value as Rs.1466/- per R for bagayat and Rs.733/-
for jirayat land, which is just and proper according to me.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:18:33 :::
3 1055-2003-FA+.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 matters.
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 Appeals need 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 Appeals are partly allowed as
under :
ORDER
(I) The Appeals are partly allowed.
(II) 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
4 1055-2003-FA+.odt
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
arp/-
