State Of Maha v. Bhonjis Hanumantra Bade

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.210 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra ...APPELLANT (Orig. Respondent)

VERSUS

Bonaji Hanumantrao Bade Age-70 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Wadgaon/Chinchpur Pangul, Taluka-Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar.

...RESPONDENT (Orig. Claimant) ...

Mr.S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Appellant.

None present for Respondent.

...

CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021 ORAL ORDER :

1.

This is an appeal arising out of Judgment and award dated 23rd November 1990 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Land Reference No. 101 of 1986

granting enhancement to the tune of Rs.800 per R for irrigated land and Rs.335/- per R for non-irrigated land. 2.

I have heard learned AGP appearing for the appellant - State. None present for respondent.

3.

Learned AGP submits that the amount granted by the learned reference court is exorbitant and the reference court failed to consider the sale instances considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while issuing the award. 4.

After going through the record and proceedings and impugned Judgment and award, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned reference court after considering relevant factors for determining the amount of compensation has arrived at Rs.800/- per R in relation to irrigated land and Rs.335/- per R for nonirrigated land. In absence of any perversity in the impugned Judgment and award or in absence of any contra evidence, I do not find any merit in this matter and therefore, no interference is needed in this matter.

5.

Moreover, there is no dispute that enhanced amount of compensation is within four times than the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In view of the policy decision of the State Government, as per Government Resolution dated 3rd November 2016 and corrigendum issued to the to the same, whereby it was resolved not to file or contest any appeal wherein the amount is well within four times and therefore, on this count also, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment and award impugned in the present matter. 6.

However, the Judgment and award requires to be modified to the extent of the amount of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act which is granted from the date of possession, whereas it should have been from the date of award as per the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari1. 8.

Accordingly, the present appeal needs to be partly allowed, as under:-

O R D E R

(I) The appeal is partly allowed.

2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)

(II) The clause (3) of the operative part of the Judgment and award dated 23rd November 1990 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Land Reference No. 101 of 1986 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 at the rate of 9% per annum and for the subsequent period it would be at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the entire amount of the Award.

(III) No order as to costs.

(IV) Pending civil application No.9733 of 2004 is allowed and disposed of.

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] asb/APR21