Bombay High Court
Bhagirathi Hanmanth Patil And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Dige
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2664 OF 2021
BHAGIRATHI HANMANTH PATIL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.A.D.Sonkawade, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr.B.R.Survase, Advocate for respondent No.4.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
S.G. DIGE, JJ.)
DATE : MAY 05, 2022
PER COURT :
1. The petitioners before us have approached this Court with prayer
clauses B, C and D, which read as under :-
"B. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the communication
issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Udgir to petitioners on 23.12.2019;
C. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in like nature directing the
respondents herein to modify the award dated 04.05.2019 and award
the compensation amount with interest as per Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 till passing of award under Section 28-A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 04.05.2019;
D. Issue a writ of mandamus, or writ in like nature, directing the
respondents herein to pay 10% interest which is deducted from the
khs/May 2022/2664
original award passed on 12.12.2015 passed by Lok-Adalat;"
2. While issuing notice on 11.02.2021, this Court has observed in
paragraph No.1 of it's order, as under :-
"1. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petition is
restricted to the extent of claiming interest at the rate of 10% per
annum from the date of settlement till the payment of the amount.
2. Issue notice to respondents, returnable on 08.04.2021. The
learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3."
3. On 13.04.2022, after we heard the learned Advocates for quite
some time, we had passed the following order :-
"1. The learned Advocate representing respondent No.4 submits that
he desires to take instructions as regards the undertaking executed by
the petitioners i.e. at page No.21-A.
2. The petitioners rely upon the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Sadu (Sahadeo) Aba Kamble (deceased) Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2018(5) Mh.L.J. 656, to buttress their
submission that they are entitled for 10% interest on the Award under
Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the compensation
was not paid within six months.
3. Stand over to 22.04.2022 in the "passing orders" category."
4. Having extensively considered the submissions of the learned
khs/May 2022/2664
Advocates for the respective sides and taking into account that these
two petitioners namely Bhagirathibai Hanmanth Patil and Shri.
Venkat Apparao Kodmangale are claiming the payment of 10% of the
interest amount, we are not required to go into much details in this
case.
5. Suffice it to say that both these petitioners entered into a
Lokadalat settlement on 12.12.2015 vide which, they were assured of
an award u/s 28(A) within 6 months from the date of the settlement,
Vide Clause 3, the petitioner waived 10% amount from the total
interest amount as the award was to be delivered within 6 (six)
months. They have signed below the settlement document which
contains a clause at Sr.No.4 that they would not pursue the State
Government for payment of compensation.
6. It is undisputed that the award u/s 28-A was delivered on
25/07/2016, which is more than 6 months beyond the settlement and
the amount was finally paid to the petitioners on 04.05.2019.
7. The learned Division Bench of this Court has dealt with this issue
khs/May 2022/2664
at the Principal Seat in Sadu (Sahadeo) Aba Kamble (deceased) Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, 2018(5) Mh.L.J. 656, wherein this
Court considered the delay on the part of the statutory authorities in
making the payment pursuant to the award u/s 28-A. 10% deduction
towards royalty for payment of compensation by the statutory authority
was interfered with by the Court and the respondents were directed to
make the payment of 10% interest within 3 months.
8. From the facts of the case in hands, it is obvious that on the one
hand, the petitioners were assured of an early payment since the award
u/s 28-A was to be delivered within 6 (six) months. On the other hand,
they were bound to a condition at Clause 4 that they would not pursue
the State for an early payment. If this be so, the logical question that
arises is as to why should these petitioners sacrifice 10% of the interest
amount when the State is not serious in making an early payment and
would make such payment merrily thereafter. If these petitioners were
to litigate in this Court, we do not find that the State could demand
10% royalty.
9. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The 10% of
khs/May 2022/2664
the interest amount from 12.12.2015 till the amount was actually paid
on 04.05.2019, shall be paid to these two petitioners on or before
30.07.2022, failing which, we award further interest @ 6% on the said
amount from 12.12.2015 till the amount is actually paid.
( S.G. DIGE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/May 2022/2664
