Advocates appeared :

C.J. Sawant, Advocate General with R.S. Deshpande, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for the appellant-State.

S.M. Paranjape, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

G.S. Hegde, for respondent No. 3.

Per M.L. DUDHAT, J. :---This first appeal arises out of the land acquisition proceedings. The appellants in this case is the State of Maharashtra. The appellants have preferred this first appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 21st August, 1995 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 257 of 1990. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the trial Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. The trial Court has also granted solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the total market value and additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the notification published under sub-section (1) of section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 1st February 1982 till the date on which the possession was taken viz. 28th November, 1988. The Lower Court also granted interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the net amount of the compensation from the date of possession for the first year and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum thereafter till realisation. This compensation amount and the additional benefits granted to the respondents-claimants are the subject-matters of challenge before us in this first appeal. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents-claimants have also preferred cross-objections challenging the compensation awarded by the trial Court and by the aforesaid cross-objections, the respondents-claimants claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. metre. The aforesaid first appeal on behalf of the respondents-claimants are argued before us.

2.Since in this matter, there has arisen a substantial question of law, we would like to deal with and decide the said substantial question of law first and after deciding this first appeal on the said substantial question of law, we will dispose of the appeal and the cross-objections of the respondents-claimants after taking into consideration the respective arguments of both the sides.

3.Shri C.J. Sawant, learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the appellant-State along with the learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri R.S. Deshpande. Shri G.S. Hegde, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3. Respondents-claimant were represented by the learned Counsel Shri S.M. Paranjape.

4.The learned Advocate General, in his arguments, pointed out that while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court had granted additional benefits under sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended on 24th September 1984 by the Central Act No. 68 of 1984. According to the appellants, the provisions relating to payment of additional benefits such as solatium, additional compensation at the rate of twelve per cent per annum etc. are separate and distinct and they do not form components of the compensation as defined under section 23(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to appellants, only certain provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as they stood on 20th December 1966, were incorporated in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and were not adopted by general reference as it was not the intention of the Legislature to include all the subsequent amendments to Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made from time to time. According to appellants, the intention of the Legislature was clear i.e. to incorporate only certain provisions in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 as they stood on 20th December 1966. It was, therefore, strenuously contended by the learned Advocate General that the trial Court had erred in granting the additional benefits to the respondents-claimants under sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the said provisions were introduced