Appeal against enhancement of land acquisition compensation. Court upheld enhanced damages for useless land but directed deduction of 12% interest as the pre-amendment award excluded Section 23(1-A) benefits.
Enhanced compensation of Rs.39,670/- confirmed; 12% interest under Section 23(1-A) to be deducted; rest of award confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1032 OF 1988
The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector of Sangli ...Appellant
(Original Opponent)
V/s.
Smt.Basavva Dundappa Dugani ...Respondent
(Original Claimant)
Mr.Bharat Mehta, AGP for the Appellant.
Mr.R.S. Apte for the Respondent.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2007
P.C. :-
. Heard Shri Mehta, learned AGP for the State and
Shri Apte, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. Shri Apte, learned Counsel for the respondent
submits that he has returned the papers to the client
after the matter was dismissed for default in 2002. The
learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial
Court had erred in enhancing the compensation and that
there is no evidence on record justifying enhancing of
compensation.
- 2 -
3. The learned AGP submits that the claimant is not
entitled to claim at the rate of 12% as additional
compensation under Section 23(1-A) since the award was
passed before the amendment of 1982.
4. So far as the first submission is concerned, I
have perused the evidence which is adduced by the
claimant. The claimant has stated that the lands were
acquired for the minor irrigation tank and that price of
this land was Rs.7000/- per acre. He has further stated
that there were 3-4 bunds constructed on this land and
that separate compensation was not paid by the Land
Acquisition Officer for these bunds. He has also stated
that a well was constructed on the said land in the year
1968 and the Land Acquisition Officer has not determined
the price of the well separately. He has further stated
that he was taking money crops such as sugar-cane etc.
He has further stated that after the land was acquired,
the remaining was divided into two portions and the well
was submerged in the acquired land and therefore, no
water was available for the remaining portion of the
land. It is further stated that on account of
- 3 -
acquisition of the other land, the remaining portion was
divided into four fragments and therefore, the said
portion had become useless. If the said evidence is
taken into consideration, it is obvious that on account
of acquisition of adjoining land, the remaining land had
become practically worthless and therefore, under the
provisions of Section 23, claimant was entitled to claim
damages on account of the said portion that was useless
on account of acquisition of the said land. The Trial
Court has, therefore awarded enhanced compensation of
Rs.39,670/- which comes to about Rs.3000/- per acre.
The submission made by the learned AGP for the State
cannot be accepted. Though it is true that the trial
Court has not given adequate reasons for arriving at the
enhanced compensation, perusal of the evidence on record
indicates that there is sufficient material on record on
the basis of which the claimant would be entitled to
claim enhanced compensation as awarded by the trial
Court.
5. So far as the second submission made by the
learned AGP for the State regarding the grant of
- 4 -
additional compensation under the provisions of Section
23(1-A) is concerned, this submission will have to be
accepted. It is an admitted position that the award was
passed prior to 1982 and as such, the claimant would not
entitled to claim the benefit of the amendment made in
1982 and therefore, will not be entitled to claim
interest under the provisions of Section 23(1-A). The
additional compensation, therefore, which is calculated
at the rate of 12% will have to be deducted from the
payable compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
Rest of the award, however, is confirmed.
7. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms
and is disposed of.
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation under Section 23 for additional damages to the remaining land.
Whether the claimant is entitled to additional compensation at 12% interest under Section 23(1-A) when the award was passed before the 1982 amendment.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Sangli
Smt.Basavva Dundappa Dugani
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court