State Of Mah v. Gangadhar D Tamshette

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1209 OF 2004 1.

The State of Maharashtra Through The Collector, District Nanded.

2.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pazar Talao, M.I.D. No.2, Nanded.

3.

The Executive Engineer, Medium Project, Jangamwadi, Nanded.

..

Appellants (Original Respondents)

Versus

Gangadhar s/o. Digamber Tamshette, Age 50 years, Occu. Agri., R/o. Chandola, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded.

..

Respondent (Original Claimant) ...

Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Appellants Mr. G. N. Chicholkar, Advocate for Respondent-claimant ...

CORAM :

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATE : 5th MAY, 2021 ORAL ORDER :- The present Appeal is arising out of the Judgments and Awards dated 30-10-2003 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 162 of 2000 by the learned Reference Court, enhancing the amount of compensation for the acquired land.

2.

The land-in-question is acquired for Minor Irrigation Project at Village Chandolsa, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 17-091998. Thereafter, the Award was passed on 15-05-2000. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, a Reference was preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in which, the total amount has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.780/- per R from Rs.630/- per R. The said Judgment and Award is under challenge in this Appeal.

3.

I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of Maharashtra and Mr. G. N. Chincholkar, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant.

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 in paragraph No. 17 of the impugned Judgment has observed that, no oral or documentary evidence was produced by appellants to establish that the market value of land determined by the land Acquisition Officer was just and proper. On the other hand, the documentary and oral evidence produced by the claimant was properly considered by the Reference Court and accordingly has arrived at the conclusion that the land-in-question would get Rs.680/- per R. as market value, which is just and fair according to me. 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)

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 matter.

9.

Moreover, in view of the Government policy not to file or to 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 appeal needs 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 Appeal is partly allowed as under : O R D E R (I) The first appeal is partly allowed.

(II) The clause in regard to awarding of interest in the operative part of the impugned Judgment and Award, passed by the Reference Court is modified, and, it is held that the claimant is 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 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 mtk