Partly allowed

The Executive Engineer Urdhva Pravara Canal Division, Sangamner Thr Vivek Hanumant Lavat and Anr. v. Kundalik Shankar Gholap and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2018FA/3260/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In four appeals, the High Court acquiesced challengers filed by the State authorities regarding the interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Relying on Full Bench precedent, the court held that interest must be calculated from the award declaration date under Section 11, not from notification. The impugned awards were quashed to the extent they granted interest earlier, and w

What did the court decide?

Awards regarding interest under Section 28 quashed to extent of date of grant; interest payable only from award declaration date of 25.05.2001; awards modified accordingly.

The Executive Engineer Urdhva Pravara Canal Division… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 3260 OF 2018

¶5

1.The Executive Engineer
Udhar Pravara Canal Division,
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
Through;
Vivek Hanumant Lavat,
Age-32 Years, Occ: Service as
Assistant Engineer Grade I,
at Palkhed Canal Sub-Division No.5,
Talegaon Dhege, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2.The State of Maharashtra,
S.L.O. No.3, Aurangabad road,
Ahmednagar. ..Appellants
Versus
1.Kundalik Shankar Gholap,
Age 40 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
2.Ramnath Shankar Gholap,
Age-54 yrs, Occ-Agriculture,
Both R/o- Dhumalwadi, Tq. Akole,
Dist. Ahmednagar...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3261 OF 2018
1.The Executive Engineer
Udhar Pravara Canal Division,
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
Through;
Vivek Hanumant Lavat,
Age-32 Years, Occ: Service as
Assistant Engineer Grade I,
at Palkhed Canal Sub-Division No.5,
Talegaon Dhege, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2.The State of Maharashtra,
S.L.O. No.3, Aurangabad road,
Ahmednagar. ..Appellants

¶6

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶7

(2)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Chima Kashiba Dhumal, (Since Dead, Through L.Rs.)

¶10

1A. Raghunath Chima Dhumal, Age-50 yrs, Occ-Agriculture,

¶11

2. Laxman Kashiba Dhumal, Age-65 yrs, Occ-Agriculture, 1 & 2 R/o. Dhumalwadi, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶12

3. Laxmibai Chima Dhumal, Age-68 yrs, Occ-Agriculture, R/o-Dhumalwadi, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶13

4. Kaushayabai Kacharu Awari, Age-48 yrs, Occ-Nil, R/o-Dhamangaon Awari, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶14

5. Kisanabai Karbhari Kadum, Age-45 yrs, Occ-Nil, R/o-Hivargaon Ambre, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶15

6. Manda Shivaji Kotkar, Age-43 yrs, Occ-Nil, R/o-Dhumalwadi, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶16

7. Bharat Chima Dhumal, Age-41 yrs, Occ-Nil, R/o-Dhumalwadi, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶17

8. Shindu Dilip Zolekar, Age-40 yrs, Occ-Nil, R/o-Dhumalwadi, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶18

9. Nanda Baban Awari, Age-38 yrs, Occ-Nil,

¶19

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶20

(3)

¶21

R/o-Dhamangaon Awari, Tq.Akole,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
10.Sharaswati Bhausaheb Fhargade,
Age-35 yrs, Occ-Nil,
R/o-Nimgaon (B), Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
11.Arun Chima Dhumal,
Age-29 yrs, Occ-Nil,
R/o-Dhamangaon Awari, Tq.Akole,
Dist. Ahmednagar...Respondents
WITH

¶22

FIRST APPEAL NO. 3262 OF 2018
1.The Executive Engineer
Udhar Pravara Canal Division,
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
Through;
Vivek Hanumant Lavat,
Age-32 Years, Occ: Service as
Assistant Engineer Grade I,
at Palkhed Canal Sub-Division No.5,
Talegaon Dhege, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2.The State of Maharashtra,
S.L.O. No.3, Aurangabad road,
Ahmednagar. ..Appellants
Versus

¶23

Bhauseth Ganpat Bhot,
Age 75 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o-Dhumalwadi, Tq.Akole,
Dist. Ahmednagar...Respondent

¶24

WITH

¶25

FIRST APPEAL NO. 3263 OF 2018

¶26

1.The Executive Engineer
Udhar Pravara Canal Division,
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
Through;
Vivek Hanumant Lavat,
Age-32 Years, Occ: Service as
Assistant Engineer Grade I,

¶27

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶28

(4)

¶29

at Palkhed Canal Sub-Division No.5,
Talegaon Dhege, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶30

2. The State of Maharashtra, S.L.O. No.3, Aurangabad road, Ahmednagar. ..Appellants

¶31

Versus

¶32

Bhaskar Zumbar Deshmukh,
Age 55 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o-Dhumalwadi, Tq.Akole,
Dist. Ahmednagar...Respondent

¶33

...

¶34

Mr. Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Vinod Y Bhide, Advocate for Respondents.

¶35

...

¶36

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
 DATE : 25th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶38

.Since, in all these appeals common

¶39

objection has been raised by the acquiring body in

¶40

exception to the awards impugned in the present

¶41

appeals, common arguments were heard in these
appeals and I deem it appropriate to decide these
appeals by a common reasoning.

¶42

2.Shri Arora, the learned counsel appearing

¶43

for the appellants at the outset submitted that
challenge to the awards impugned in the present
appeals is restricted only to the extent of the
interest awarded by the Reference Court under

¶44

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶45

(5)

¶46

Section 28 of the Act from the date of Section 4
notification or from the date of possession.

¶47

3.Shri Bhide, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents i.e. original claimants
submitted that present appeals be admitted so that

¶48

the claimants may file cross objection for
enhancement in the amount of compensation as
awarded by the Reference Court. I am, however, not
convinced with the request so made by Advocate Shri

¶49

Bhide. If the claimants intend to file appeal
seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation,
it would be open for them to file independent
appeals. However, in the present appeals, since
the challenge is restricted only to the extent of
grant of interest under Section 28 of the Act, I
find it appropriate to finally decide these
appeals.

¶50

4.Shri Arora, the learned counsel brought

¶51

to my notice the judgment of the full bench of this
Court in the case of “The State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Bom.C.R. 1” wherein
the full bench has held that interest under Section
34 of the Act can only be awarded from the date of

¶52

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶53

(6)

¶54

publication of the award under Section 11 of the
Act and not from any prior date. The learned
counsel then brought to my notice the judgment of
the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: S.B.
Shukre, J.) in First Appeal No. 383 of 2004. In

¶55

the aforesaid judgment the learned Single Judge has
held that the interpretation which has been made of
Section 34 by the full bench of this Court would
squarely apply to Section 28 of the Act also. The
learned counsel also invited my attention to one
another judgment delivered by learned Single Single
Judge of this Court (Coram: Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.)
in First Appeal No. 483 of 2018 delivered on
05.03.2018, wherein the learned Single Judge has
modified the judgment and award so far as the
interest under Section 28 of the Act granted by the
Reference Court in the said matters from the date
of issuance of Section 4 notification or from the

¶56

date of possession. The learned counsel in the
circumstances, prayed for modification in the
impugned judgment and award to the said extent and
allow the appeals filed by the acquiring body to
the aforesaid extent.

¶57

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶58

(7)

¶59

5.Shri Bhide, the learned counsel appearing
for the original claimants has not disputed the
legal position and the arguments as been canvassed
by the learned counsel. As noted herein above, it
was his only contention that the claimants also
want to file the appeal for enhancement since, the
compensation has not been adequately awarded by the
Reference Court. I reiterate that the right of the
claimants will not be taken away if these appeals
are decided. In view of the fact that the legal
position has not been disputed by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants,
the appeals need to be allowed to the aforesaid
extent.

¶60

6.The Hon'ble full bench of this Court in
the case of “The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari” (cited supra) has ruled that the
interest under Section 34 of the land acquisition
Act can only be awarded from the date of
publication of the award under Section 11 of the
said Act and not from any prior date. Relying upon
the said judgment the learned Single Judge of this
Court in First Appeal 383 of 2004 has held that the

¶61

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶62

(8)

¶63

interpretation which has been made of Section 34 by
the full bench of this Court would squarely apply
to Section 28 of the Act also. As was argued by
Shri Arora in another judgment in First Appeal
No.483 of 2018 delivered on 05.03.2018, the learned
Single Judge has modified the judgment and award

¶64

impugned in the appeal before him so far as
interest under Section 28 of the Act granted by the
Reference Court in the said matter from the date of
issuance of Section 4 notification. In the present
matter, the learned Reference Court has awarded the
interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date
of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the
Act. The order so passed thus cannot be sustained
in view of the full bench judgment of this Court
and the judgments delivered by two learned Single
Judges of this Court in the matters referred
herein-above. The impugned awards to the aforesaid
extent, therefore, need to be modified. It is not
in dispute that the award under Section 11 of the
Act was declared in all these matters on
25.05.2001, the interest under Section 28 of the
Act, therefore, can be granted to the claimants
from the said date and not from any prior date.

¶65

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶66

(9)

¶67

For the reasons stated above, the following order
is passed:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i)The awards impugned in the present
appeals so far as they relate to award of
interest under Section 28 of the Act from
the date of issuance of Section 4
notification, stand quashed and set
aside.

¶70

ii)The interest under Section 28 of the Act
shall be made payable to the claimants in
all these awards from the date of
declaration of the award under Section 11
of the Act i.e. from 25.05.2001.

¶71

iii)The awards be modified accordingly.
iv)All these appeals thus stand partly
allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶72

v)The claimants in all these awards
impugned in the present appeals are
permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited in these appeals in this Court
to the extent they would be held entitled
in view of the modified award along with
interest accrued thereon. The balance

¶73

904-FA-3260-2018 Judg.odt

¶74

(10)

¶75

amount be refunded to the acquiring body

¶76

along with interest accrued thereon.

¶77

 (P.R. BORA, J.)

¶78

Mujaheed//

The Executive Engineer Urdhva Pravara Canal Division, Sangamner Thr Vivek Hanumant Lavat and Anr. v. Kundalik Shankar Gholap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Urdhva Pravara Canal Division, Sangamner Thr Vivek Hanumant Lavat and Anr. v. Kundalik Shankar Gholap and Anr.

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

Somnath Shankar Karekar and Anr. Vs the Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Div. Osmanabad and Ors.

Digambar Vitthalrao Raut Vs Dinesh Shankarrao Magar and Anr.

Baliram Rambhau Kale Vs Dinesh Shankarrao Magar and Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Vs Vasudha Balwantrao Joshi and Anr.

Navnath Raghunath Shinde Vs Sanjaykumar Yashwant Maske and Others

The Executive Engineer Urdhva Pravara Canal Division, Sangamner Thr Vivek Hanumant Lavat and Anr. Vs Bhaskar Zumbar Deshmukh