Partly allowed

State of Maharashtra. v. Sadanand Narayan Peje.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2011FA/1109/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court modified an impugned award in a land acquisition reference. It set aside the 30% solatium and 12.5% interest granted but upheld the compensation enhancement for loss of business and loss of goodwill. The court directed the Reference Court to reconsider compensation and grant interest under Section 28.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified to set aside 30% solatium and 12.5% interest; respondent entitled to interest under Section 28.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Sadanand Narayan Peje. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

fa1109with x obj

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.1109 OF 1992
WITH
 CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.14060 OF 1993

¶6

The State
at the instance of the
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Ratnagiri...Appellant

¶7

vs.

¶8

Sadanand Naryan Peje ...Respondent

¶9

Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the appellant
Mr.S.M.Kamble for the respondent

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA,J.
 DATE : JANUARY 18,2011

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

1The appellant-State of Maharashtra has taken an
exception to the Judgment and Award dated 8th April 1991
passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in a
reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The
acquisition relates to the land bearing survey no.93
situated at village Rahatagar, Taluka and District
Ratnagiri. Notification under sub section 4 of section
126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 r/w section 6 of the said Act was issued on 31st
October 1981. Award under section 11 was made on 31st
September 1986. As far as present respondent-claimant is
concerned, he is claiming to be the proprietor of a
business which was carried on in the structure on the
land bearing survey no.93. He was carrying on the lodging
business. By the Award under section 11 of the said Act,
no compensation was offered to the respondent. Reference
was made at the instance of the respondent claiming

¶13

2 fa1109with x obj

¶14

compensation of Rs.32,000/-. He claimed a sum of Rs.
7,000/- as loss of business for six months, a sum of Rs.
5,000/- as shifting of business charges, Rs.10,000/- as
loss of permanent furniture and fixtures and Rs.10,000/-
on account of loss of goodwill. By the impugned Award,
reference was partly allowed. The operative part of the
impugned award reads thus:

¶15

The claim of the claimant is partly
allowed.

¶16

It is hereby held that the claimant is
entitled to receive enhance compensation of Rs.
15,000/- with 30% solatium with interest
thereon at the rate of Rs.12.5%.

¶17

Parties to bear their own costs.�

¶18

2The learned A.G.P for the appellant submitted that
there was absolutely no evidence of any income received
by the respondent from the alleged business. He submitted
that no documentary evidence was produced by the
respondent in support of any of the claims made in the
reference under section 18 of the said Act. He
therefore, submitted that there was no reason to grant
any compensation. He pointed out that the respondent was
not entitled to solatium as well as interest at the rate
of 12.5% p.a. The learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned Award. He pointed out that the
evidence of the respondent had gone unchallenged and
therefore, the entire compensation of Rs.32,000/- ought
to have been granted. He submitted that the appeal may
be dismissed and the cross objection may be allowed.

¶19

3I have considered the submissions. I have perused
the record. The respondent claims to be the proprietor of

¶20

fa1109with x obj

¶21

¶22

Ganesh Lodge which was a business carried on by him in
the premises on the land bearing survey no.93. The
respondent stepped into witness box. He produced a
licence under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act,1948
which is at Exh.30. The licence has been issued in the
year 1967 which was renewed from time to time. In the
deposition of the respondent, the licence was admitted
in the evidence and marked as exhibit. There is no
suggestion in the cross examination that the respondent
was not carrying on any such business in the premises on
the acquired land. Therefore, the Court will have to
proceed on the footing that the respondent was carrying
on business in the name and style of Ganesh Lodge. In
the examination-in-chief, the respondent stated that his
yearly income was Rs.14,000/-. In the claim made under
section 18 of the said Act, compensation of Rs.7,000/-
has been claimed being the income for the period of six
months. There is absolutely no cross examination made by
the appellant on the aspect of income received.
Therefore, there was every justification for granting the
compensation on the ground of loss of business.

¶23

4In the deposition, the respondent came out with a
case that he has incurred expenses of Rs.3,000/- on
cement flooring, a sum of Rs.6,000/- on making wooden
partition and a sum of Rs.5,000/- on electric fittings.
In the cross examination, he admitted that there was no
documentary evidence to support the said claims. The
respondent came out with a case that he suffered loss of
goodwill to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. There is no basis
for the said claim. But, the evidence of the claimant
shows that the business had some good will.

¶24

5Determination of market value under section 23 of
the said Act by its very nature involves some element of

¶25

4 fa1109with x obj

¶26

guess work. Looking to the aforesaid evidence, the
learned Reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.
15,000/- which is just and proper and no interference is
called for.

¶27

6What has been granted to the respondent is
reasonable and surely no case is made out for granting
any enhancement in absence of any documentary evidence
regarding improvements carried out in the premises.

¶28

7What is granted by the Reference Court is not the
market value but the compensation payable under clause
fourthly of sub section 1 of section 23 of the said Act.
Benefits under section 23 (1-A) and section 23(2) are
payable only on the market value of the land covered by
the clause firstly of sub section 1 of section 23.
However, as the Award has been made after coming into
force of the Amendment Act no.68 of 1984, the respondent
will be entitled to interest in accordance with section
28 of the said Act.

¶29

8 Hence, I pass the following order :

¶30

i) Impugned Award is modified by setting aside that part of the impugned Award by which the solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12.5% has been granted.

¶31

ii)The respondent-claimant shall be entitled to interest in accordance with section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.

¶32

iii)Rest of the Award is not disturbed.

¶33

iv)Appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs.

¶34

v) Cross objection is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶35

5 fa1109with x obj

¶36

vi)Computation of the compensation payable in terms of
the modified Award shall be made by the Reference
Court within a period of three months from the date
on which writ of judgment is received by the
Reference Court.

¶37

 JUDGE

State of Maharashtra. v. Sadanand Narayan Peje.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra. v. Sadanand Narayan Peje.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Gopinath Mhatre Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Dev.Authority and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S. N.C. Chavan Construction Co.

The State of Maharshtra Vs Smt. Bhimabai Nagu Mhatre and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dinkar Vasudeo Dalvi and Othrs

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bapurao Rangnath Umbare

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bapurao Rangnath Umbare