State Of Maha vs Bhagwan Pralhad Gangane
2022 Latest Caselaw 9348 Bom

                                             1
                                                                          385.04FA

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2004

          The State of Maharashtra
          Through Collector, Beed.                    .. APPELLANT
                                                    [Orig. Respondent]
                  VERSUS

          Bhagwan s/o. Pralhad Gangane,
          Age 40 years, Occupation Agriculture,
          R/o. Redi, Tal. Ambajogai,
          Dist. Beed.                         .. RESPONDENT
                                                [Orig. Claimant]
                                      ...
          Mr.S.S.Dande, AGP for the appellant-State
          Mr.N.B.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent.
                                      ...

                                        CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.

                                        Reserved on   : 18.08.2022
                                        Pronounced on : 16.09.2022

          JUDGMENT :

1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

judgment and award passed by the 2 nd Additional District

Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed [for short 'the Reference

Court'] whereby enhancement of compensation is allowed.

Against the said judgment and order, the appellant -

original respondent preferred this appeal.

385.04FA

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2] The land of the claimant was situated at village

Radi, it was acquired for the purpose of construction of

percolation tank. The Special Land Acquisition Officer [for

short 'the SLAO'] declared an award on 26 th June, 1992.

The possession of the land was taken on 18th May, 1987.

3] It is the contention of the learned AGP for the

appellant-State that the learned Reference Court has not

appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and has

granted excess compensation to the respondent. The

learned Reference Court has erred in awarding Rs.450/- per

Are for the acquired land, which is far more than the actual

market value at the relevant time. The compensation is

awarded Are-wise and ought to have awarded

compensation Acre-wise. The compensation of Rs.450/- per

Are is four times more than the amount granted by the

SLAO, which is highly excessive and much more than the

actual market value at the relevant time, hence, requested

to allow the appeal.

385.04FA

4] It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondent that the Reference Court has awarded the

compensation on the basis of previous judgment of the land

acquired for the same purpose in which market price has

been determined at the rate of Rs.500/- per Are. Hence, the

order passed by the Reference Court is legal and valid.

5] I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the

judgment and order passed by the Reference Court.

6] The issue involved in this appeal is four times

more rate given by the Reference Court than the rate given

by the SLAO. The learned Reference Court has observed

that the acquired land is situated near the village Radi.

The Amba Sugar Factory is situated about 5-6 kilo meters

from the village Radi, the tahsil Ambajogai is 13 kilo meters

away from the said village. The village is developing one.

The previous judgment in which the rate was given at

Rs.500/- per Are, hence, he has given rate of Rs.450/- per

Are. In my view, when it has come on record that the village

Radi is near to Ambajogai city and near to Ambajogai sugar

385.04FA

factory. It shows that it is a developing village. The earlier

lands from the same village were acquired for the graveyard

vide notification dated 24.09.1992 in which Rs.500/- rate

per Are was granted. The said order is not challenged. The

lands of the appellant is from the same village so the rate of

Rs.450/- per Are granted by the Reference Court is proper.

Moreover, Government vide Circular dated 03.11.2016 and

corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 has taken a decision that if

the compensation is within four times, it shall not be

challenged. The interest given by the Reference Court is

from the date of possession. As per the view taken by the

Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of The State of

Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Rangari reported in 2016 [3]

Mh.L.J. 457, it should be from the date of award, hence, I

pass the following order :-

ORDER

i] Appeal is partly allowed.

ii] The respondent is entitled for the interest on the awarded compensation as per the view taken in the case of The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Rangari [supra].

385.04FA

iii] The respondent is entitle to withdraw the amount, if not withdrawn.

iv] Respondent to refund interest amount.

          v]               Appeal is disposed of accordingly.



                                                        [S.G.DIGE]
                                                          JUDGE




          DDC