Rameshwar S/O Uddhav Tanpure vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 874 Bom

Judgment                            1            928-W.P.No.5788.2019.odt




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 5788 OF 2019


      Rameshwar S/o Uddhav Tanpure,
      Aged about 43 years, Occu. - Cultivator,
      R/o. Kaulkhed, Tah. Lonar,
      District Buldhana.
                                                 .... PETITIONER

                            // VERSUS //

1)    The State of Maharashtra,
      through its Secretary,
      Department of Assistance and
      Rehabilitation,
      Mantralaya Mumbai-32.

2)    The Divisional Commissioner,
      Amravati Division, Amravati.

3)    The Collector, Buldhana,
      Tah. and District Buldhana.

4)    The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
      Minor Irrigation, Buldhana,
      District Buldhana.

5)    The Executive Engineer,
      Minor Irrigation Division,
      Tah. Risod, District Washim.
                                             .... RESPONDENTS

______________________________________________________________ Mr. K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Mr. Amit M. Kukday, Advocate for respondent No.5. ______________________________________________________________

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ DATED : JANUARY 25, 2023 Judgment 2 928-W.P.No.5788.2019.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks interest on delayed payment of

compensation that was granted towards rehabilitation of the persons

affected by acquisition of their lands. The petitioner was the owner of

land bearing Gat No. 79 that came to be acquired by the Vidarbha

Irrigation Development Corporation. Award in that regard was passed

on 30.03.2009. In the matter of enhancement of amount of

compensation, the petitioner did not file any reference proceedings

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Instead as per the

Government Resolution dated 15.12.1983 he claimed grant of

rehabilitation amount. On 20.09.2010 the amount of rehabilitation

compensation came to be determined. Various similarly situated land

owners had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5648 of 2015

(Rambhau Rajaram Kodke (Dead) Through LR Lakshman S/o

Rambhau Khodake and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

others) seeking interest on the amount of belated payment of

compensation. By judgment dated 27.06.2017 this Court held the

petitioners therein entitled to interest on the amount of rehabilitation

compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.09.2010 to Judgment 3 928-W.P.No.5788.2019.odt

30.10.2014 to be paid within a period of two months. Insofar as the

present petitioner is concerned, it is the stand of the Collector that

since he was not a party in that Writ Petition, the amount of interest

was not paid. This Court on 21.12.2022 prima facie found that case of

the petitioner was covered by the decision in Rambhau Rajaram

Khodke (supra).

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that

the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in the aforesaid

Writ Petition and the only reason for not paying the amount of interest

on the amount of rehabilitation compensation to the petitioner is that

he was not a party to the earlier Writ Petition. That cannot be a legal

reason to deny the claim of the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, for reasons assigned in the judgment dated

27.06.2017 in Rambhau Rajaram Khodke (supra), it is held that the

petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of rehabilitation

compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.09.2010 to

18.08.2018 when he received the amount of rehabilitation

compensation. The aforesaid amount be paid to the petitioner within a

period of three months from today.

Judgment 4 928-W.P.No.5788.2019.odt

5. Insofar as the grievance made by the petitioner that the

deduction of Rs.1,62,861/- from the amount of compensation by the

respondent No.4 is not justified, we find that liberty can be granted to

the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent No.4 to

indicate his entitlement to the aforesaid amount. If such

representation is made, the respondent No.4 shall consider the same in

accordance with law and take decision thereon within a period of four

weeks on receiving such representation. Needless to state that if the

grievance of the petitioner in that regard still subsists thereafter he is

free to take legal recourse in that matter.

Rule is made absolute. No costs.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Kirtak

Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK BHIMRAO JANARDHAN Signing Date:27.01.2023 17:13