Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
VASANTI A. NAIK, SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Wardha - Appellant
Versus
Ku. Rekha d/o Sukhdeorao Chaware and others - Respondents
First Appeal No.704 And 705 of 2012 With First Appeal No.933 of 2013
Decided On : 10-04-2017
For the Appellant :Shri J.B. Kasat, Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. A.S. Athalye, Advocate, Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP, Ms. A.S. Athalye, Advocate, Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for acquired land and trees under the Land Acquisition Act, along with the entitlement to interest under Section 34 of the Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Section 4, Section 6, Section 18 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Section 4 and Section 6 notifications in the context of land acquisition for the Madan Talav - Tank Project. The court also considered the grant of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The key legal provisions discussed include the determination of market value for compensation and the entitlement to interest under Section 34 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Maharashtra decided to acquire the land of the respondents for the Madan Talav - Tank Project. The respondents filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference to the civil court, seeking enhanced compensation. The reference Court directed the State Government and the acquiring body to grant compensation for the acquired lands at a higher rate than initially awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The acquiring body appealed against the enhanced compensation and the grant of additional compensation for the trees on the acquired land.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the judgment of the reference Court in enhancing the compensation for the acquired land and the trees. However, it ruled that the respondents were entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of passing of the award, not from the date of securing possession. The First Appeals were partly allowed, modifying the judgments and awards passed by the reference Court.
Issues: The issues involved were: (i) Granting compensation for the acquired land, (ii) Entitlement to additional compensation for the trees, (iii) Entitlement to interest under Section 34 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the reference Court was justified in relying on the sale deed executed before the issuance of the Section 4 Notification to enhance the compensation for the acquired land. It also found that the reference Court was correct in granting additional compensation for the trees based on the evidence presented. However, the court ruled that interest under Section 34 of the Act should be payable from the date of passing of the award.
Final Decision: The First Appeals were partly allowed, modifying the judgments and awards passed by the reference Court. The respondents would be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of passing of the award.
VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
1. Since the facts and the issues involved in these first appeals are common and since they arise from similar judgments and awards passed by the reference Court on the applications made by the respondents-claimants, enhancing the compensation towards the acquisition of the land, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
2. The State of Maharashtra decided to acquire the land of the respondents and certain other adjoining lands for Madan Talav - Tank Project by issuance of the Section 4 Notification on 12.10.1998. The Section 6 Notification was issued on 23.3.2001. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 18.8.2002 granting compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs.47,500/- per hectare. Separate compensation was granted to the respondents-claimants for the trees standing on the land. Being dissatisfied by the grant of meagre compensation, the respondents-claimants filed separate applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference of the matter to the civil Court. Separate land acquisition cases were registered and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, the reference Court directed the State Government and the appellant - Acquiring Body to grant compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The State Government and the appellant were further directed to pay the enhanced compensation for the trees at 20% of the compensation that was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards trees. The Acquiring Body Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (V.I.D.C.) is aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and also due to the grant of 20% of the amount for the trees on the acquired land.
3. Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the appellant - V.I.D.C. submitted that the reference Court was not justified in granting enhanced compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is stated that while granting the said compensation, the reference Court has relied on a saledeed executed by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others on 25.7.1996, whereby Shri Chaware had sold the land admeasuring .81 HR to Sheikh Rahim and others. It is stated that the State Government had decided to acquire the land some time in the month of September, 1996 and the sale-deed is executed just before the State Government had desired to acquire the land. It is submitted that the reference Court should not have relied on the said sale-deed to enhance the compensation manifold and grant it @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that the reference Court was not justified in directing the appellant to pay 20% of the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees on the acquired land as an additional compensation for the trees. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever in granting additional amount for the trees standing on the land. It is submitted that since the possession of the land of the respondents was secured by the Government before the issuance of the Section 4 Notification, interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act was liable to be paid from the date of passing of the award and the respondents-claimants were not entitled to the interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date on which the possession was secured. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment, State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457 to substantiate his submission.
4. Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Government supported the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and advanced similar submissions as are advanced on behalf of the appellant - V.I.D.C. It is submitted that the enhancement of the compensation is on the higher side and it is not supported by any cogent evidence.
5. Ms Athalye, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the awards passed by the reference Court. It is submi
