Partly allowed

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Raosaheb Dadarao Kedar and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2019FA/2144/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In multiple land acquisition appeals against enhanced compensation awards, the State abandoned the claim on excessive value but successfully challenged interest calculations. The court quashed interest awarded from possession date, ordering it payable only from the award date citing precedent.

What did the court decide?

Interest under Sections 28 and 34 from possession date quashed and made payable from the date of passing the Award.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Raosaheb Dadarao Kedar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 2140.2008FA.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.2137 OF 2008

¶4

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed .. Appellant

¶5

(Orig. Respondent)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Tukaram S/o. Patilbhuva Dhas, Age : 45 years, Occu : Agril, and r/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

¶8

Dadarao s/o. Patilbuva Dhas, Age : 40 years,

¶9

Laxman S/o. Sudam Dhas, Age : 25 years,

¶10

Dasu s/o. Sudham Dhas, Age : 22 years,

¶11

Dhanraj S/o. Sudam Dhas, Age : 20 years, All Occu Agri., and all r/o. Ekarka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

..Respondents

(Orig. Claimants)

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2138 OF 2008

¶16

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e.

¶17

ggp

¶18

2 2140.2008FA.doc

¶19

Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed

¶20

.. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

¶21

Versus

¶22

Dharma s/o. Yanka Dhas Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri,

¶23

Asruba s/o. Yanka Dhas Age : 55 years, Occu : Agriculture, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

¶24

WITH

¶25

FIRST APPEAL NO.2139 OF 2008

¶26

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed

¶27

.. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

¶28

Versus

¶29

Gayabai W/o. Gopinath Kedar Age : 50 years, Occu : Agri, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Respondent (Orig. Claimant)

¶30

WITH

¶31

FIRST APPEAL NO.2140 OF 2008

¶32

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed

¶33

.. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

Versus

ggp

3 2140.2008FA.doc

Laxmibai w/o. Rajendra Kedar, Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri, and Household, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Respondent (Orig. Claimant)

¶38

WITH

¶39

FIRST APPEAL NO.2141 OF 2008

¶40

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed .. Appellant (Orig. Respondent) Versus

¶41

Bhima S/o Devrao Kedar (Reported to be dead) Deleted, as per order Exh.7 dated 10-08-1998 2. Dnyanoba s/o. Devrao Kedar, Age : 50 years, reported to be dead, L.Rs as under : 2/1. Mahadeo S/o. Baban Kedar, Age : Minor, U/g. Sakhubai S/o. Baban Kedar, Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij. 2/2. Sahdeo S/o. Baban Kedar, Age : Minor, U/o. Sakhabai W/o. Baban Kledar, R/o. As above. 3. Shivaji S/o. Bhima Kedar, Age : 25 years, 4. Bapurao S/o. Bhima Kedar Age : 23 years, Occu : Agri, All R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, District : Beed .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

ggp

4 2140.2008FA.doc

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2142 OF 2008

¶46

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed .. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

¶47

Versus

¶48

Asruba S/o. Bhanudas Kedar, Age : 35 years,

¶49

Babasaheb S/o. Bhanudas Kedar, Age : 32 years,

¶50

Bharat S/o. Bhanudas Kedar, Age : 15 years, Minor U/g of real mother Sheshabai W/o. Bhanudas Kedar, Age : 35 years, All Occu : Agri, All R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants) .....

¶51

WITH

¶52

FIRST APPEAL NO.2143 OF 2008

¶53

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed .. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

¶54

Versus

¶55

Narhari S/o. Waman Dhas, Age : 50 years, Occu : Agril, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

¶56

ggp

¶57

5 2140.2008FA.doc

¶58

Surjayrao Waman Dhas, Age : 40 years, Occu : Agril, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

¶59

Narayan S/o. Narhari Dhas, Age : 25 years, Occu : Agri, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

¶60

.. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

¶61

WITH

¶62

FIRST APPEAL NO.2144 OF 2008

¶63

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed

¶64

.. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

¶65

Versus

¶66

Raosaheb Dadarao Kedar, Age : 40 years,

¶67

Shankar S/o. Dadarao Kedar, Age : 32 years,

¶68

Rajendra Alias Rajaram S/o. Dadarao Kedar, Age : 38 years,

¶69

All Occu Agri, and All R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

¶70

.. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

ggp

6 2140.2008FA.doc

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2008

¶75

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed .. Appellant

¶76

(Orig. Respondent)

¶77

Versus

¶78

Bappa S/o. Nana Dhas, Age : 65 yers, Occu : Agri, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Resported to be dead

¶79

Legal Heirs of deceased as below :

¶80

Namdeo S/o Bappa Dhas, Age : 55 yeas, Occu : Agril, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij

¶81

Sukhdev S/o. Bappaji Dhas Age : 50 yeas, Occu : Agril, R/o. As above.

¶82

Ramhari S/o. Bappaji Dhas Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri, R/o. As above .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

¶83

WITH

¶84

FIRST APPEAL NO.2146 OF 2008

¶85

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed.

¶86

.. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

Versus

ggp

7 2140.2008FA.doc

Vitthal Tatya Dhas, Age : 50 years, Occu : Agriculture, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed reported to be dead, L.Rs as under :

¶91

1/1. Ramhari S/o. Raosaheb Dhas Age : Minor, U/g. of Baiskebai W/o Raosaheb Dhas, Age : 45 years, Occu : Agriculture, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij

¶92

1/2 Shrihari S/o Raosaheb Dhas U/g Baiskubai W/o Raosaheb Dhas R/o As above. .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

¶93

WITH

¶94

FIRST APPEAL NO.2147 OF 2008

¶95

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed

¶96

.. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

¶97

Versus

¶98

Namdeo S/o Babu Kedar, Age : 50 years,

¶99

Digambar S/o Babu Kedar, Age : 48 years,

¶100

Trimbak S/o Babu Kedar, Age : 45 years,

¶101

All Occu. Agri., and All R/o Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

¶102

.. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

ggp

2140.2008FA.doc

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2148 OF 2008

¶108

The State of Maharashtra

.. Appellant

(Orig. Respondent)

Versus

Nivruti S/o Namdev Dhas Age : 55 years, Occu : Agril, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

¶113

Smt Sukshalabai w/o Dnyanoba Dhas Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri, R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

¶114

WITH

¶115

FIRST APPEAL NO.2149 OF 2008

¶116

The State of Maharashtra Through : The Collector, Beed i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Beed

¶117

.. Appellant (Orig. Respondent)

¶118

Versus

¶119

Ramhari Sadashiv Kedar, Age : 7 years – Minor,

¶120

Shrihari S/o Sadashiv Kedar, Age : 5 years – Minor.

¶121

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 Minor U/g of their real mother Sarubai w/o Sadashiv Kedar, Age : 35 years, Occu : Agri, r/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

¶122

ggp

¶123

9 2140.2008FA.doc

¶124

AGP for appellant – State : Shri A.M. Phule Shri M.S. Karad, Advocate h/f. Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent

¶125

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J. Dated: February 21, 2019

¶126

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶127

The State has preferred the present appeals against the common Judgment and Award passed by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge at Ambajogai, District Beed in Land Acquisition Reference No.146 of 1992 with connected Land Acquisition Reference Applications decided on 31.12.2003.

¶128

The lands, which are involved in these appeals, were acquired for the construction of percolation tank at village Ekurka, Tal. Kaij, District Beed. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in that regard was published in the Official Gazette on 14.07.1988 and the Award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on 02.04.1991. The possession was taken in some of the cases even prior to issuance of Section 4 notification on 14.07.1988. The SLAO had offered the compensation to the acquired lands at the rate ranging between Rs.120/- to Rs.140/- per Are . The Reference Court has enhanced

¶129

ggp

¶130

10 2140.2008FA.doc

¶131

it to Rs.400/- to Rs.425/- per Are . Aggrieved by, the State has preferred the present appeals.

¶132

The learned AGP at the outset submitted that, though in the memo of appeal several grounds are raised by the State in exception to the impugned Judgment and Award, in view of the policy adopted by the Government vide Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018, the State is now not agitating the appeals on the ground of enhancement as has been made by the Reference Court in the market value of the acquired lands, since the same is within the prescribed limits of 4 times of the market value as was offered by the SLAO. The learned AGP further submitted that, the impugned Judgment and Award insofar as it relates to grant of interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, however, needs to be modified, since the Reference Court has awarded the interest under the aforesaid provisions from the date of taking possession of the lands. The learned AGP, therefore, sought modification in the impugned Judgment and Award only to the aforesaid extent.

¶133

ggp

¶134

11 2140.2008FA.doc

¶135

Shri S.S. Thombre, learned Counsel appearing for

¶136

the respondents i.e. original claimants has not disputed the legal position as has been settled by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and submitted for passing appropriate orders.

¶137

I have perused the impugned common Judgment and Award. Since the amount of compensation as has been enhanced by the Reference Court is less than four times than the market value as was offered by the SLAO, the State has now decided not to prosecute these appeals in so far as enhancement in market value is concerned. There, however, appears substance in the another objection raised by the learned AGP as about the grant of interest by the Reference Court under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. Perusal of the impugned common Judgment and Award reveals that, the Reference Court has awarded the interest from the date of taking possession of the respective lands. The 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 Act can only be ggp

¶138

12 2140.2008FA.doc

¶139

granted from the date of passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act and not from any prior date. Relying on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors Vs. Ramesh Tukaram Meshram & Ors, 2018 (1) ALL MR 645 has held that, the interpretation as has been made of the provision under Section 34 of the Act would equally apply to the provision under Section 28 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, in the circumstances, has held that, the interest under Section 28 of the Act would also be payable only from the date of passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act and not from any prior date. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has fairly conceded the legal position as has been canvassed by the learned AGP. In the circumstances, the present appeals deserve to be partly allowed. Hence the following order.

¶140

ORDER

¶141

(i) The impugned common Judgment and Award so far

¶142

as it relates to grant of interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of taking possession i.e. 24.09.1984 is quashed and set aside. Instead, such an interest is made payable

¶143

ggp

¶144

13 2140.2008FA.doc

¶145

from the date of passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act i.e. 02.04.1991. Save and except the aforesaid modification, the other part of the Award is maintained as it is. The modified

¶146

Award be prepared accordingly.

¶147

(ii) The appeals are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶148

(iii) Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶149

( P.R. BORA, J. )

¶150

ggp

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Raosaheb Dadarao Kedar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Raosaheb Dadarao Kedar and Ors.

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

Taslim Khadir Shaikh Vs Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Branch Manager, and Ors.

Shital Vasant Kalyankar and Ors. Vs M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its M.D. and Anr.

Laxman Nilu Kadam Vs Executive Engineer Nimna Dhudhana Project Selu and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Bhima Devrao Kedar and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ramhari Sadashiv Kedar andANR

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Gayabai Gopinath Kedar