Bombay High Court
Mohansing Kondiram Rajput vs State Of Maharashtra ... on 25 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:1967
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
995 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1616 OF 2007
Mohansing s/o Kondiram Rajupt,
Age 70 years, Occupation Agri.,
R/o Bendwadi (Parsoda) Taluka
Vaijapur Dist.Aurangabad. ...Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Special Land Acquisition,
Aurangabad. ...Respondent
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. B. Kale
AGP for Respondents: Mr. V. M. Chate
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9104 OF 2015
IN FA/1616/2007
....
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : January 25, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the
Reference court has dismissed the Reference as far as enhancement of
compensation in respect of trees, borewell, cattle shed, and structures
situated on acquired land on account of failure to lead evidence by the
claimant. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanlal Decoahnd Shah
2 995 FA 1616-2007
Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. WITH Kantilal Manikchand
Shah (Since deceased by his LRs.) Versus State of Maharashtra
and Anr., reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3452, wherein
paragraph 14 runs as under : -
"The failure or the omission to lead evidence to prove the
claim appears in the above context to be a case of some kind
of misconception about the legal requirement as to evidence
needed to prove cases of enhancement of compensation. We
do not in that view see any reason to deny another
opportunity to the landowners to prove their cases by
adducing evidence in support of their claim for enhancement.
Since, however, this opportunity is being granted ex-debito
justitiae, we deem it fit to direct that if the Reference Court
eventually comes to the conclusion that a higher amount was
due and payable to the appellant-owners, such higher amount
including solatium due thereon would not earn interest for the
period between the date of the Judgment of the Reference
Court and the date of this order. These appeals are with that
direction allowed, the judgments and orders impugned in the
same modified to the extent that while the enhancement order
by the Reference Court shall stand set aside, the matters shall
stand remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh disposal in
accordance with law after giving to the land owners
opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claims for
higher compensation."
3. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submits that he be
3 995 FA 1616-2007
permitted to lead evidence in respect of the above and that he would
not claim interest or statutory benefits for the delay period.
4. The learned AGP has opposed the appeal on the ground of
huge delay in filing of the first appeal and further submits that in the
event the Court remit the matter back to the Reference Court, the
appellant be not granted interest and statutory benefits from the
date of Reference Court award i.e. 25/04/1997 till date.
5. In view of the submissions made, the matter is remitted back
to the Reference Court to decide the amount of compensation only
as regards a valuation of trees, borewell, shed and structure on the
land.
6. Relying upon the Judgment Cited above in Ramanlal (Supra) it
is directed that in the event the appellant succeeds in the Reference,
the Reference Court would not grant any interest or statutory
benefits for the period from the date of the Judgment dated
25/04/1997 till filing of an application dated 21/08/2015 to lead
evidence in the First Appeal.
7. The appeal is disposed of. Pending application stands disposed
of.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )
vj gawade/-.
