Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Versus
SHYAMKANT DATTATRAYA PATIL
Decided on, JANUARY 23, 2006
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23(1-A) and 34 - Enhanced rate of interest. - Where Award was made on 3.3.1982 and amount was also paid on 17.3.1982, i.e. before cut off date therefore a direction for higher interest and solatium can be given only in respect of enhanced amount of compensation than what Collector awarded.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(2) (as amended by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984) - The enhanced rate of solatium is applicable to the award passed by the Collector or the Court after 30.4.1982 but before the commencement of the Act as well as thereafter - Where the Collector passed the award on 3.3.1982, reference was pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.) under Section 18 and the Reference Court passed the award on 21.12.1984 i.e. after the commencement of the Amending Act - As per amended provisions of Section 23(2), while passing the award the Civil Judge (S.D.) should have granted solatium at the rate of 30% and not 15%. (1989) 2 SCC 754 - Referred.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 34 (as inserted by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984) - Award - Enhanced rate of interest - Entitlement - If the possession was taken prior to 30.4.1982 and the compensation amount was not paid or deposited till 30.4.1982, only the amended provisions would be applicable with effect from 30.4.1982 - If the payment is already made or deposited prior to 30.4.1982 as per the award passed by the Collector, the increased rate of interest would not be applicable - Award was passed on 3.3.1982 and payment of compensation amount was also made on 17.3.1982 - As the compensation amount was paid before 30.4.1982 the amended provisions of Section 34 enhancing the rate of interest could not have been made applicable - Civil Judge (S.D.) committed error in giving directions for payments of enhanced rate of interest, on whole of the compensation - Such direction could be given only in respect of the enhanced amount of compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Collector.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 152 Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either by its own motion or on application of the parties The Reference Court, while passing the award, awarded solatium at the rate of 15% by not taking note of the amended provisions either by accidental slip or omission on own part or on the part of the advocates appearing in the matter It was accidental slip or omission on the part of the Reference Court and that mistake could have been rectified suo motu or on the application of the concerned parties The Civil Judge (S.D.) on application of the claimants corrected that mistake and awarded solatium at the rate of 30% by the impugned order Therefore, order pertaining to the enhancement of the solatium upheld.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 152 Correction of decree Accidental omission Plaint not having any survey member in it Document of survey plan produced Judgment no where referred those plans Cannot be said omission of number in decree was an accidental omission. It is an undisputed fact that the suit was filed in the year 1974. New survey conducted in the State of Goa was not promulgated prior to 1976. The promulgation was either in the year 1976 or thereafter. Being so, it cannot be said that the failure to mention survey number in the plaint was either by a mistake or on account of accidental omission by the petitioners. Undoubtedly the judgment passed by the trial Court refers to the fact that the petitioners had produced the document of survey plan and index of land. However, analysis of the document in the judgment nowhere discloses reference to those documents as forming basis to arrive at the finding of ownership and possession of the petitioners in relation to the property which was described with reference to its boundaries and matriz No. 157 as well as the name of the property. Even the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the finding arrived at by the trial Court solely on the basis of the matriz record and boundaries of the property without any reference to or reliance upon the new survey records either in the form of index of land or survey plan. Being so, it cannot be said that there was accidental omission on the part of the trial Court to refer to the survey number either in the judgment or decree passed by the trial Court. On this ground itself, therefore there was no ground for exercise of the powers under Section 152 to introduce the survey number in the judgment or decree. Hence no fault can be found with the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 152 CPC.
( 2 ) FACTS leading to these appeals may be stated in brief thus : the appellant, the State of Maharashtra, acquired certain lands for Hatnoor right Bank Canal which is Distributory of Thorgavan and Manwel, Tq. Yawal. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8-1-1980 was published in the Government Gazette dated 7-2-1980. Special Land Acquisition officer made the award on 3-3-1982 by passing common order in respect of the respondents. The respondents being not satisfied by the amount of compensation as per the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition, made references under section 18 of the said Act. The references were also decided and the Civil Judge (S. D.) passed awards on 21-12-1984 by enhancing the market value of the lands acquired from them. Pending the references before the Civil Judge (S. D.), Land acquisition Act was amended by the Amending Act No. 68/1984 with effect from 24-9-1984. By the said amending Act certain additional benefits were given. By addition of sub-section (1a) to section 23 additional component of the rate of 12% p. a. of market value was provided for the first time. By making amendment in sub-section (2) of section 23, the amount of solatium was increased from 15% to 30% and by making amendment in section 34, rate of interest was also increased from 6% to 9% for first year after taking possession of the land and 15% beyond period of one year after taking possession till the payment of the compensation amount. After the award was passed by the Civil Judge (S. D.) on reference under section 18, by the judgment dated 21-12-1984, the respondents filed Misc. Applications Nos. 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153 of 1985 and 148/1986 seeking additional benefits in view of the amendment of the Act.
( 3 ) THE applications were opposed on behalf of the State. However, after hearing the parties relying on certain Supreme Court and High Court authorities, the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) passed the impugned order dated 2-9-1986 granting additional benefits as per the amended provisions of the Land acquisition Act. The said order has been challenged in the present appeals by the state of Maharashtra. It is contended by the State that reference was already decided and the award was passed by the Civil Judge (S. D.), on 21-12-1984, and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of additional benefits. Further it is contended that the land acquisition proceedings in question were not pending as on 30-4-1982, since the award was already passed by the collector prior to that date and therefore, the amended provisions would not be applicable to the instant cases. It is contended that the trial Court committed error in passing the impugned order.
( 4 ) HEARD Shri K. G. Ghute Patil, learned A. G. P. for the appellant and Shri amol P. Nikam, advocate holding for Shri V. T. Choudhari, learned advocate for the respondents.
( 5 ) PERUSED the impugned order and relevant provisions of law.
( 6 ) FOLLOWING points arise for my determination and I record the findings against them. (i) Whether the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) committed error in granting additional component amount calculated at the rate of 12% p. a. on such market value from the date of the notification or the date of taking possession whichever is earlier to the date of award, in view of section 23-1a added by the amending Act No. 68/1984. . . . . . . . Yes. (ii) Whether the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) committed error in granting enhanced rate of interest on total compensation amount by virtue of amendment in section 34 of the Act by the amending act No. 68/1984. . . . . . . . Yes. (in) Whether the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) committed error in granting increased solatium at the rate of 30% instead
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
