The State Of Maharashtra And Another v. Pandurang Jaiwanta Zambare
1 FA 1641-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1641 OF 2018 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Collector, Beed.
2) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Division Beed.
...Appellants (Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
Babasaheb s/o Gajaba Dhas, Age Major, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Jamgaon Tq. Ashti Dist.Beed.
...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant) ....
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1642 OF 2018 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Collector, Beed.
2) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Division Beed.
...Appellants (Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
1) Uttam s/o Bhagwan Zambre, Age Major, 2) Shantilal s/o Bhagwan Zambre, Age Major, 3) Ankush s/o Bhagwan Zambre, Age Major, 4) Shahaji s/o Bhagwan Zambre, Age Major,
2 FA 1641-2018 All Occupation Agriculture, R/o Jamgaon Tq. Ashti Dist.Beed.
...Respondents
(Ori. Claimants) ....
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2018 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Collector, Beed.
2) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Division Beed.
...Appellants (Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
1) Tukaram s/o Naba Dhas, Age Major, 2) Tulsabai w/o Raosaheb Janjire, Age Major, Both Occupation Agriculture, R/o Jamgaon Tq. Ashti Dist.Beed.
...Respondents
(Ori. Claimants) ....
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1644 OF 2018 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Collector, Beed.
2) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Division Beed.
...Appellants (Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
Pandurang s/o Jaiwanta Zambare, Age 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Jamgaon Tq. Ashti Dist.Beed.
...Respondents
(Ori. Claimant) ....
3 FA 1641-2018 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1645 OF 2018 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Collector, Beed.
2) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Division Beed.
...Appellants (Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
Sadashiv s/o Parabati Zambre, Age Major, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Jamgaon Tq. Ashti Dist.Beed.
...Respondents
(Ori. Claimant) ....
AGP for Appellants : Mr. P. M. Kulkarni.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. D. R. Jayabhar. ....
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
Date :
05-08-2019.
ORDER :
1.
All these appeals have been filed by the State challenging the enhancement in the compensation as well as interest rate under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act granted vide common Judgment and award passed by reference Court i.e. Ad-hoc District Judge -1, Beed, in LAR No.194 of 2007, LAR No.197 of 2007, LAR No.192 of 2007, LAR No.193 of 2007 and LAR No.195 of 2007 on 30-04-2010.
2.
The lands, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were acquired for the purpose of 'Percolation Tank No.7 At Jamgaon Tq.
4 FA 1641-2018 Ashti Dist. Beed'. The present respondents / original claimants had filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for getting enhancement in the compensation that was granted by Land Acquisition Officer. Claimants were the owner and possessor of lands situated at village Jamgaon Tq. Ashti Dist. Beed. The award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer on 09-06-2000 under Section 11 of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has granted compensation to the claimants @ Rs.250/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the rate given by SLAO, the said reference were filed under Section 18 of the Act. After taking into consideration the evidence and hearing both sides, the learned reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.700/- per R.
The interest under Section 28 of the Act has been granted for the first year at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of taking possession, and thereafter, it has been granted at the rate of 15% per annum. So also interest under Section 34 of the Act has been granted.
3.
Heard learned AGP Mr. P. M. Kulkarni for appellants/State and learned advocate Mr. D. R. Jayabhar for respondents and perused the impugned Judgment.
4.
It is the contention of the appellants/State in these appeals that, the Reference Court has arbitrarily enhanced the amount of
5 FA 1641-2018 compensation without there being any cogent evidence therefor. It is further contended that, the sale instances, which are relied upon by the Reference Court while determining the market value of these lands, cannot be held to be the sale instances of the comparable lands. It was further contended that, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in fact, had correctly determined the market value of the acquired lands by visiting each and every land personally and by considering the relevant sale instances, which have occurred in the relevant period and as such, no interference was called for. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and to restore the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the matters.
The learned AGP for appellants / State also submitted that, rate of interests under Section 28 and 34 have been wrongly given from the date of possession, when as per the decision of the Full Bench in, State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in AIR 2016 Bombay 141, it should be from the date of award. 5.
On perusal of the Judgment, it is revealed that, the Reference Court has elaborately considered the evidence on record, more particularly the sale instances Exhibits 15 and 16 brought on record has determined the market value of the acquired lands. Learned Reference Court has also considered location, shape, size, fertility, yield taken in the lands. After perusal of the impugned Judgment,
6 FA 1641-2018 apparently, it does not appear that the Reference Court has taken any unreasonable view or has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands arbitrarily or on excessive side. Moreover, in view of the policy adopted by the Government vide Government Resolution dated 3rd November, 2016 read with Corrigendum dated 23rd February, 2017, the present appeals are not liable to be prosecuted further since the market value, as has been determined by the Reference Court, is less than four times of the market value as was offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The fact remains that the market value, as has been determined by the Reference Court, is less than four times of the market value as was offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In such circumstances, considering the Government policy, there seems no case for any interference in the impugned Judgment and award only in respect of enhanced compensation amount by the Reference Court. 6.
Another point raised by the learned AGP for appellants/ State in respect of rate of interests under Section 28 and 34 have been wrongly given from the date of possession, when as per the decision of the Full Bench in, State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in AIR 2016 Bombay 141, it should be from the date of award. There is substance in the submissions made by appellants / State. The decision given by Full Bench deserves to be followed, though it has come later in point of time, than the award
7 FA 1641-2018 was passed, in these appeals. Yet, since the appeals are the continuation, the said decision will have to be made applicable. Hence, appeals deserve to be partly allowed as follows ;
ORDER
(i) Appeals are hereby partly allowed.
(ii) The Judgment and award passed by Ad-hoc District Judge -1, Beed, in LAR No.194 of 2007, LAR No.197 of 2007, LAR No.192 of 2007, LAR No.193 of 2007 and LAR No.195 of 2007 on 30-04-2010, is hereby set aside to the extent of award of interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and it is modified as follows ; "(a) Original claimants are entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation, solatium and component amount @ of 9 % per annum from the date of award i.e. 09-06-2000 till deposit of enhanced compensation, solatium and component amount in the Court."
"(b) If this enhanced compensation and solatium amount with interest thereon is not deposited till 09-06-2001, the claimants are entitled to interest
8 FA 1641-2018 @ of 15 % per annum from 10-06-2001 till the date of deposit of entire compensation amount and solatium amount in the Court."
"(c) Claimants are entitled for interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act on the compensation amount awarded by Collector @ of 9 % per annum from the date of award i.e. 09-062000 till acceptance of compensation amount by claimants."
(iii) It is clarified that, rest of the award is kept as it is. (iv) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE vjg/-.