Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Rameshchandra Aba Patil

Bombay HC8 Oct 2007FA/904/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil appeal, the High Court held that the State could not claim deduction of additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) because the land acquisition award was passed before the amending Act came into force, making the benefit inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.10,650/- is deducted from the amount awarded by the Reference Court.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Rameshchandra Aba Patil — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 FIRST APPEAL NO. 904 OF 1988

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant
 (Orig.Opponent)
 V/s.
 Rameshchandra Aba Patil )
 (since deceased through )
 his Legal heirs):- )
 )
 1. Shankar Rameshchandra Patil, )
 Son, Age 45, At Post Aarale, )
 Tal.Shirala, Dist.Sangli. )
 )
 2. Shamrao Rameshchandra Patil, )
 Son, Age : 37, )
 At Post : Aarle, Tal.Shirala, )
 Dist-Sangli. )
 )
 3. Uttam Rameshchandra Patil, )
 Son, Age 31, )
 At Post Aarla, Tal.Shirala, )
 Dist-Sangli. )
 )
 4. Kalatai Vishwas Mohite, )
 Daughter, Age 40, )
 At Post Nadhawade, Tal.Shirale, )
 Dist-Sangli. )
 )
 5. Shalan Jaisingh Patil, )
 Daughter, Age 28, )
 At Post Sondoli, Tal.Shahuwadi, )
 Dist-Kolhapur. )
 )
 6. Malan Baburao Patil, )
 Daughter, Age : 25, )
 At Post Sonawade, Tal.Shirale, )
 District : Sangli. )
 )
 7. Balakabai Rameshchandra Patil, wife, )
 Since deceased through her legal heirs :)
 )
 7-1) Shankar Rameshchandra Patil, )
 R/o. Aarle, Tal.Shirala, )

¶5

 Dist.Sangli, )
 7-2) Shamrao Rameshchandra Patil, Son)
 R/o. Aarle, Tal.Shirala, )
 Dist.Sangli, )
 7-3) Uttam Rameshchandra Patil, Son, )
 R/o. Aarle, Tal.Shirala, )
 Dist.Sangli, )
 7-4) Kalatai Vishwas Mohite, )
 Daughter, )
 R/o.Nadhawade, Tal.Shirala, )
 Dist.Sangli, )
 7-5) Shalan Jaisingh Patil, )
 Daughter, )
 R/o.Sandoli, Tal.Shahuwadi )
 Dist.Kolhapur. )
 7-6) Malan Baburao Patil, Daughter, )
 R/o.Sonawade, Tal.Shirala, )
 Dist.Sangli, )...Respondents
 (Orig.Claimants)

¶6

 Mr.Bharat Mehta, AGP for the Appellant.
 Mrs.S.S. Deshpande for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 8, 2007

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶9

 . Heard Shri Mehta, learned APP for the State and
 Mrs.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶10

 2. The State is challenging the award passed by the
 Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, in Land
 Acquisition Case No.16/82. Brief facts in nutshell are
 that land belonging to the claimant was acquired for
 Chandoli Irrigation Project, Village Arale, Dist.

¶11

 - 3 -

¶12

 Sangli. The award was passed on 30.10.1980. The
 Reference Court awarded additional compensation of
 Rs.17,892/-.

¶13

 3. The learned APP has taken me through the

¶14

 judgment and order of the trial Court and also the
 evidence adduced. After having perused the order and
 the evidence, in my view, there is no infirmity in the
 additional compensation which is awarded by the trial
 Court. Shri Mehta, learned APP for the State submits
 that the additional compensation of 12% per annum which
 has been granted as per the provisions of Section
 23(1-A) of the Act in view of the amendment made in 1982
 would not be available to the claimant since the award
 was passed prior to amendment of Section 23(1-A). In
 support, he has relied on the judgment in the case of

¶15

Kashiben Bhikabai and others v/s. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and another, reported in (2002) 2
SCC 605. The Apex Court in para 17 of the said judgment
 has observed as under :-

¶16

 "Counsel appearing for the claimants contended

¶17

 - 4 -

¶18

 that the claimants would be entitled to an
 additional compensation @ 12% as provided under
 Section 23(1-A) of the Act. This contention
 cannot be accepted in view of a Bench decision
 of this Court in Union of India v. Filip Tiago
 De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990) 1 SCC 277
 which held that additional compensation under
 Section 23(1-A) of the Act would not be
 available to a claimant in which the acquisition
 proceedings commenced and the award was made by
 the Collector prior to 30-4-1982. If the
 Collector made the award before 30-4-1982 then
 the additional amount under Section 23(1-A)
 cannot be awarded. The pendency of the
 acquisition proceedings on 30-4-1982 before the
 Collector was essential for attracting the
 benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It
 was held: (SCC pp.286-87, para 21)

¶19

 "21. Entitlement of additional amount
 provided under Section 23(1-A) depends
 upon pendency of acquisition proceedings
 as on 30-4-1982 or commencement of
 acquisition proceedings after that date.
 Section 30 sub-section (1)(a) provides
 that additional amount provided under
 Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to
 acquisition proceedings pending before
 the Collector as on 30-4-1982 in which
 he has not made the award before that
 date. If the Collector has made the
 award before that date then, that
 additional amount cannot be awarded.
 Section 30 sub-section (1)(b) provides
 that Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable
 to every acquisition proceedings
 commenced after 30-4-1982 irrespective
 of the fact whether the Collector has
 made an award or not before 24-9-1984.
 The final point to note is that Section
 30 sub-section (1) does not refer to
 court award and the court award is used
 only in Section 30 sub-section (2)."

¶20

 - 5 -

¶21

 No judgment taking a contrary view to the above-referred
 case was cited before us. Accordingly, it is held that
 the appellants would not be entitled to the additional
 compensation provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act."

¶22

 4. The ratio of the said judgment, in my view,

¶23

 squarely apply to the facts of the present case and
 therefore, the claimant would not be entitled to get
 further compensation at the rate of 12% per annum which
 comes to Rs.10,650/-.

¶24

 5. Appeal is partly allowed and the said amount of
 Rs.10,650/- is deducted from the amount awarded by the

¶25

 Reference Court. Rest of the award is confirmed.

¶26

 6. First Appeal is partly allowed in the above
 terms. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order
 as to costs.

¶27

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Rameshchandra Aba Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Rameshchandra Aba Patil

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

Nivrutti Seva Sangh Vs Kalavati Devrav Hange

Ramashankar Jhanwar Vs Ramavtar S. Jhanwar and Anr.

The Pune Panjarpole Trust Vs Shri Baban Gabaji Saste and Ors.

Abdul Hamid Khan Matwan Vs Mohammad Hanif Jafarali Inamdar and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Namdeo Pandurang Sutar

Hari Agencies Vs R.S. Navale and Anr.