Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Anandibai Vasantrao Lonkar

Bombay HC19 Aug 2005FA/912/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an appeal by the State of Maharashtra, set aside the enhancement of interest granted by the District Judge in a land acquisition reference, holding that Section 23(1-A) did not apply as the award predated the relevant amendment cutoff date per Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal allowed only to the extent where the Reference Court has awarded interest under Section 23(1-A); the impugned judgment and decree to that extent are modified.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Smt. Anandibai Vasantrao Lonkar — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 912 OF 1989

¶5

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.15, Pune.)

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

V/s

¶8

Smt. Anandibai Vasantrao Lonkar, Sole Trustee of Onkareshwar Mahadeo Devasthan, residing at 1286/A, Shivajinagar, Pune - 5. 2. Pune Municipal Corporation, Shivajinagar, Pune - 5. --Mr. K.K. Tated, AGP for the appellant.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

None for the respondents.

¶11

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & V. M. KANADE, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 19th August, 2005.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶14

Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader

¶15

appearing on behalf of the State. None appears for

¶16

the respondents.

¶17

2.	The	ap	pellant	-	Sta	te of	Maharas	htra	being
aggrieved	by		the	judgment	and	decree	passed	by	the
Extra	Joint		District	Judge,	Pu	ne in	Land		Acquisition
Reference	No	.44	of	1981	has	filed	this First		Appeal.

¶18

:2:

¶19

By	the	said judgment and		decree dated 1	0/10/1988,	the
Extra	Joint	District Judge w	as	pleased to	enhance	the
compensation		awarded by the		Special Land	Acqu	isition

¶20

Officer from Rs 35.60 paise per sq. meter to Rs 47.35 paise per sq. meter.

¶21

Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of

¶22

deciding this appeal are as under:-

¶23

The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of an area of 13700 sq. meters which finally culminated in award being passed on 20/11/1979.

¶24

5.	The	only point	wh	ich	is	canv	assed	before us	in
this	First	Appeal is	that		the	Dis	trict	Court had	erred
in	granting	interest	@	1	2%	as	provi	ded in	section
23(1-A)	of	the Land	Ac	quisit	ion	Act,	189	4. It	was
submitted		by the	lea	rned		Assist	ant	Government	Pleader
appearing		on behalf	of	th	e	State	t	hat section	23(1-A)
was	incorpo	rated in	Sect	ion	23	of	the	said Act	by
virtue	of	amending Act	No	.68	of	19	84	which came	into
effect	from	24/09/1984.	I	t	was		submitt	ed that, in	the
present	ca	se, the award		was	pa	ssed	on	20/11/1979	and
section		30(1) clause	(b)	o	f t	he	ame	nding Act	provided
that	in	cases where	t	he	award	w	as	made prior	to

¶25

:3:

¶26

30/04/1982		and	aga	inst	whic	h r	eference	was	pend	ing in
the Ref	erence	Cou	rt	on	24/09	/1984,	such	cases	we	re not
covered	by	secti	on	23(1-	A)	of	the s	aid	Act.	In
support	of		the	said	su	bmission	, the	learned		Counsel
relied	on	the	judg	ment	of	the	Supreme	Court		reported

¶27

in the case of K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala

¶28

and others reported in (1994) 5 SCC 593.

¶29

6.	The		learned	Assistan	t	Gover	nment	Pleader	has	taken
us	through		the	judgment	and	or	der of	the	Re	ference
Court	which		was	delivered	on	10	/10/1988.	He	su	bmitted
that,	at		the	relevant	time,	R	eference	Court	relied	on
the	Full		Bench	Judgment	of	the	Bombay	High	Court	in
the	case	of	Jay	want Vs.	G	overn	ment of	Goa,	Daman	and
Diu		rep	orted	in 1987	Mh.L	.J.	1564	and on	the	basis
of	the	said		judgment,	awar	ded	interest	@	12%	as
provided	u	nder		section 23	(1-A)	of	the s	aid Act.		He

¶30

submitted that, at the relevant time, the issue had

¶31

not been concluded by the Supreme Court.

¶32

7.	In	our	view, the	submissions	made	by	the	learned
Assistant	Gov	ernment	Pleader	will	have	to	be	accepted.
It is	an	admitt	ed position	that	by v	irtue	of	amendment
to	section		23, section	23(1-A)	was	incorp	orated	and
inserted		with	effect	from	24/0	9/1984.		However,
section	30(1)	of	the amendi	ng Act	laid	down	the	manner

¶33

:4:

¶34

in	which t	he	said	provisions	had t	o be	applied	in
respect	of	the	cases	pending	on/or	aft	er 30/	04/1982.
This	issue	is fin	ally	concluded	by	the	Supreme	Court
in	the case	of	K.S.	Paripoo	rnan	(supra)	in which	the
view	taken	by	the	three	H	on’ble	Judges	viz.
Venkatac	haliah,	C.J.,	Ag	rawal &	Bha	rucha,	JJ.,	after
interpreti	ng section	30(	1)(b)	of the	sa	id	Act was	that
section	23(1-A)	will	not	be a	pplicable	wh	ere the	award
is	passed	prior	to	30/04/1982	and	the	cases	pending
before	the	Referen	ce	Court on	24/09	/1984.	In	our

¶35

view, ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is squarely

¶36

applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶37

8.	Accordin	gly, First	Appeal	is allo	wed	only to	the
extent	where	the	Reference	Court	has	awarded	interest
as	provided	under	section	23(1-A).		The	impugned
judgment	and	decree	to that	extent	is	modified.	No
other	submissions	has	been	made		by the	learned

¶38

Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

¶39

the State.

¶40

First Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

¶41

(R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

¶42

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Anandibai Vasantrao Lonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Anandibai Vasantrao Lonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Harbansing Ghattarsingh and Another Vs Shri Pradeep B. Shingore

Kaluram Hawaba Potale and Otehrs Vs the State of Maharasthsra

Maruti Laxman Chorghe ( Deceased ) Vs the Special Land Acquistion Officer,Raigad

State of Maharashtra(Thorugh Spl.Land Acq.Officer. Vs Balram Parshuram Patil.

Vidya Sharad Urankar Vs the Special Land Acquision Officer (Mhada) and Ors.

M/S.Khodiyar Builders Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.