Partly allowed

The Executive Engineer Majalgaon Canal Divn No. 5 Parli Vaijnath Dist Beed v. Sugriv Gangaram Shep and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2022FA/2592/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against a land acquisition award were partly allowed. The court held that interest on the compensation amount must be calculated from the date of the award, not the date of possession, relying on State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the award was modified to grant interest from the correct date, and respondents were permitted to withdraw the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Interest on compensation awarded from the date of award; respondents permitted to withdraw deposited amount; award modified accordingly.

The Executive Engineer Majalgaon Canal Divn No. 5 Parli… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 1009- F.A. No. 2590-2010 2591-20102592-

¶2

2010.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2590 OF 2010

¶5

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJALGAON CANAL DIVISION NO.5, PARLI VAIJNATH, DISTRICT BEED VERSUS GANGADHAR TULSHIRAM SHE AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for the appellant : Mr. D. A. Bide h/f Mr. R. C. Patil

¶7

AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. P. M. Kulkarni

¶8

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2591 OF 2010

¶9

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJALGAON CANAL DIVISION NO.5, PARLI VAIJNATH, DISTRICT BEED VERSUS SAGJANABAI BABURAO SHEP AND OTHERS

¶10

…. Advocate for the appellant : Mr. D. A. Bide h/f Mr. R. C. Patil

¶11

AGP for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. B. Chate Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. A. V. Thombre h/f Mr. S. B. Solanke

¶12

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2592 OF 2010

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJALGAON CANAL DIVISION NO.5, PARLI VAIJNATH, DISTRICT BEED VERSUS SUGRIV GANGARAM SHE AND ANOTHER

¶14

2 1009- F.A. No. 2590-2010 2591-20102592-

¶15

2010.odt

¶16

…. Advocate for the appellant : Mr. D. A. Bide h/f Mr. R. C. Patil

¶17

AGP for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. B. Chate Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. A. V. Thombre h/f Mr. S. B. Solanke

¶18

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J. DATE : 20.09.2022

¶19

PER COURT :-

¶20

These appeals are preferred against the common judgment passed by 3^rd Ad-hoc District Judge, at Ambegoai, District Beed ( for short, ‘’ the Reference Court’’).

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the Reference Court has granted compensation which is within four times. Learned counsel further submits that the Reference Court has granted interest on the compensation amount from the date of possession however as per view taken by full bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 [3] Mh.L.J. 457, it should be from the date of award. Hence requested to allow the appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent submits that he is ready to accept the order passed by this Court.

¶23

3 1009- F.A. No. 2590-2010 2591-20102592-

¶24

2010.odt

¶25

The compensation amount awarded by Reference Court falls within four times. The Government has taken a stand by issuing Government circular that appeal should not be preferred in such matters. The disputed issue is in respect of interest awarded by the Reference Court. Full bench of this Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) has held that interest should be given on compensation amount from the date of award and not from the date of possession. In the present matter, the interest is given from the date of possession, it should be from the date of award. In view of the above, I pass the following order

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) Appeal is partly allowed.

¶28

(ii) The award passed by the Reference Court is modifed as under :-

¶29

(iii) The respondents are entitled for interest on the compensation amount from the date of award.

¶30

(iv) The respondent’s are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by appellant.

¶31

(v) No order as to costs.

¶32

( S.G. DIGE,)

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

4 1009- F.A. No. 2590-2010 2591-20102592-

¶35

2010.odt

¶36

ysk

The Executive Engineer Majalgaon Canal Divn No. 5 Parli Vaijnath Dist Beed v. Sugriv Gangaram Shep and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Majalgaon Canal Divn No. 5 Parli Vaijnath Dist Beed v. Sugriv Gangaram Shep 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goroba Bapurao Kamble and Anr. Vs Avinash Nivratirao Gurmulwad and Ors.

Pandharinath Vaijnath Jadhav (Died) Lrs Bhagirathiai Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ganpati Ramchandra Kadera Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Exe Engineer Majalgaon Canal DIV.NO.5 Vs Gangadhar Tulshiram Shep and Ors.

The Exe Engineer Majalgaon Canal DIV.NO.5 Vs Sagjanabai Baburao Shep and Anr.

Anna Rohidas Madane Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector, Osmanabad and Ors.