Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
B.U. DEBADWAR, J
The State of Maharashtra, through The Collector, Osmanabad - Appellant
Versus
Laxman (died) Through LR’s. & Others - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1581 of 2004 With Cross Objection (St) No. 12350 of 2005
Decided On : 04-09-2020
For the Appellant : B.V. Virdhe, AGP.
For the Respondents:V. D. Salunke, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the determination of just and adequate compensation and the entitlement to statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Sections 4(1), 18, 28, 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The judgment discusses the enhancement of compensation for acquired lands, the determination of statutory interest, and the legal provisions under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The State acquired lands for a project, and the claimant sought enhancement of compensation. The court allowed the enhancement and awarded statutory benefits. The State appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the lower court was not adequate and enhanced it. It also determined the statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: The issues included the adequacy of compensation, determination of statutory interest, and the applicability of government policies on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation awarded was not just and adequate, and enhanced it. It also determined that the claimant was entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the cross objection was allowed by enhancing the compensation and awarding statutory benefits.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal and cross objection are directed against the judgment and award dated 26/08/2003 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 98/1995.
2. Facts giving rise to appeal and cross objection in nut shell are as under :
Respondent – claimant was the exclusive owner in possession of the lands bearing survey No.514/8 ad measuring 2 Hectares 48R and survey No. 514/1 ad measuring 58R both situated at village Ieet, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad. Appellant – State has acquired both the lands for Dokewadi Medium Project of village Ieet. Preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 13/04/1990. Possession of both the lands was also taken in the same year. Special Land Acquisition Officer, after following due process, passed the award on 31/12/1994 thereby determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per acre and separately awarded compensation of well, dike and trees located in the acquired land.
3. Respondent – claimant moved the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation after accepting the award under protest.
4. Learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, allowed the reference partly and enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per acre with statutory benefits viz. solatium and interest, after recording the evidence and hearing both the sides.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, appellant – state has preferred the present appeal and respondent – claimant filed cross objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to appellant – State, learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, failed to appreciate evidence on record and law pertaining to determination of compensation and statutory interest in proper perspective and not only wrongly enhanced the compensation but also committed error in awarding statutory interest from the date of possession. Whereas, according to respondent – claimant, though there was sufficient evidence to enhance the compensation as claimed by him, learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, enhanced the same only to some extent.
6. While taking me through record, Mr. B. V. Virdhe, learned Assistant Government Pleader, vehemently argued that the sale instance relied upon by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad for enhancing compensation to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per acre from Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per acre was in respect of small piece of land. Therefore, it was not comparable for determining market price of acquired lands. However, learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, relied upon the same and enhanced compensation to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per acre from Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per acre, though there is no cogent evidence as to the distance between land covered by sale instances and the acquired land and also the nature of both lands. Learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, wrongly held that land covered by sale instance is comparable with the lands acquired and on the basis of said sale instance enhanced the compensation which is neither correct and proper nor legal.
7. Mr. B. V. Virdhe, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for appellant – State, contended that enhanced compensation is exorbitant and learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, has erred in granting interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from the date of possession.
8. Mr. B. V. Virdhe, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for appellant – State, invites attention to full bench ruling on the point of interest in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 (4) ALL MR 51
