The State of Maharashtra Vs Madhuri P. Kale

¶1

 34-IA-1245-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1245 OF 2022 IN /WITH

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 61 OF 1998

¶5

Digitally signed by TALLE TALLE SHUBHAM SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO ASHOKRAO Date: 2023.12.22 16:34:46 +0530

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra (Thr. The Special Land…Applicants/
Acquisition Officer No.11, Kolhapur. And Anr.Appellants
Versus

¶7

Sou.Madhuri Prakash Nale (Since deceased …Respondents
through Legal Heairs)
1.Shri. Prakash Jagannath Nale and ors.

¶8

************

¶9

Ms. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for Applicants/State.
None for the Respondents.

¶10

************

¶11

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

¶12

DATE : 18th DECEMBER, 2023

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1245 OF 2022

¶15

1.Heard learned AGP for the Applicant/State. None for the
Respondents. This is an Application for bringing legal heirs of
deceased sole Respondent on record. There is a delay of 7 years and
242 days in filing the Application. Office note shows that notices
issued to the legal heirs of sole Respondent are duly served. None
present for the Respondents, despite due service.

¶16

2.Case pleaded by the Applicant/State is that of lack of

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

Shubham Talle

¶19

 34-IA-1245-2022.doc

¶20

knowledge about death of sole Respondent. It is submitted that in
November-2021, it was learnt that the notice issued to the sole
Respondent has returned unserved with bailiff’s remark as “Dead”. It
is submitted that the office of the Government Pleader thereafter
started correspondence with the concerned Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) No. 11, Kolhapur, and finally in January-2022, necessary
information about the proposed legal heirs of sole Respondent was
received.

¶21

3.In view of the said averments in the Application, which
are uncontroverted and further considering that this matter is arising
out of land acquisition and involves payment of compensation,
sufficient cause is made out. The Interim Application is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (b) to (d). Delay is condoned. Abatement of
the Appeal is set aside. The Applicant/State is permitted to bring
proposed legal heirs of sole Respondent on record. The Interim
Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 61 OF 1998

¶23

1.Heard learned AGP for the Appellant/State. None for the
Respondents.

¶24

2.By this Appeal filed u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short “the said Act”), the State is challenging Judgment and
Order dated 07.04.1997 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge,
Kolhapur, in Land Reference No. 90 of 1988.

¶25

3.Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

Shubham Talle

¶28

 34-IA-1245-2022.doc

¶29

under. The Respondent/Original Claimant was owner of CTS No. 19
situated at on the main road, Kagal in Kolhapur District. Notification
u/s. 6 of the said Act r/w 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966, was issued in the Government Gazette on
20.11.1986, declaring intention to acquire 6.73 sq.m. portion out of
the said property of the Respondent. The Concerned Special Land
Acquisition Officer (“SLAO” for short), awarded a meagre amount of
Rs. 9,005/- including additional component, Solatium etc to the
Respondent/Claimant.

¶30

4.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this award, the
original Respondent/Claimant filed the aforesaid Land Reference u/s.
18 of the said Act. After hearing both sides and after considering the
evidence on record, the Reference Court has partly allowed the
reference. By the impugned Order in addition to the compensation
already awarded by concerned SLAO, the original
Respondent/Claimant is held entitled to additional compensation of
Rs. 34,796/- with further interest @ 15% p.a. from 23.04.1988 till
the amount is fully satisfied.

¶31

5.Learned AGP for the Appellant/State has assailed the
impugned Judgment and Order as per grounds raised in the appeal
memo. Nobody appears for the Respondents.

¶32

6.I have carefully considered the reasons given in the
impugned Judgment and Order by the Reference Court. The reasons
on which the reference is partly allowed and additional compensation
is granted are well founded. The Learned Reference Court has

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

Shubham Talle

¶35

 34-IA-1245-2022.doc

¶36

considered sale instances comparable with acquired lands and has
arrived at enhanced rate. Enhanced compensation payable to the
Respondent/Claimant is calculated at Rs. 26,436/- from which the
amount of compensation already granted by the SLAO, is deducted.
Thereafter the statutory benefits of 12% additional component as
well as 30% solatium has been calculated and added. The Reference
Court has also calculated 9% interest for the first year because the
property was already taken in possession on 23.04.1987 itself.
Considering all this, final figure of compensation has been arrived at.

¶37

7.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, considering
that the amount granted by SLAO (Rs. 9,005/-) and additional
amount awarded by Reference Court (Rs. 34,796/-) are both meagre
amounts based on valid reasons, I find that there is no reason to
interfere. There is no merit in this Appeal.

¶38

8.Facts of this case are more or less similar to a group of First
Appeals disposed of by another Single Bench of this Court with lead
First Appeal No. 208 of 1992 along with others under Order dated
03.04.2017 (Coram : M.S. Sonak, J.). I am completely in agreement
with the view taken by my brother Judge in the said Order. It has to
be noted that state compulsorily acquires lands of the citizens like
Respondent/Claimant and despite the compensation amount being so
paltry / meagre, the State carries the matters in appeal. In many
cases, it is found that on account of pendency of the Appeal
(primarily because no steps are taken by the State to effect service or
bring legal heirs on record or reasons alike), the
Respondent/Claimant remains deprived of even meagre amounts of

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

Shubham Talle

¶41

 34-IA-1245-2022.doc

¶42

compensation awarded to them. It is also sadly noted that the State
Government in such Appeals, spends amounts on Court fees, typing
and other filing expenses and legal fees which are either comparable
to the existing amounts of compensation involved or more. In many
cases it is found that the AGPs express their helplessness because
despite communication/s the concerned Government officers do not
come forward and take responsibility by clearly stating whether a
particular Land Reference case is falling under relevant GRs
(including G.R. dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated
23.02.2017, 04.05.2017 and 11.05.2018) and whether the Appeal
should be prosecuted or not in view thereof. It is further sadly noted
that the general perception seems to be, firstly that the claims which
are held against Government or Statutory Authority must be viewed
as illegal and therefore should be resisted and fought up to the
highest Courts and secondly, that if a decision on the issue could be
avoided or is to be avoided, then it is simply not taken so that
aggrieved party can approach the Court and let the Court take the
decision. This results in clogging of the judicial system and also eats
into the valuable judicial time. In view thereof I find that this is a fit
case for dismissal.

¶43

9.Hence the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of
the dismissal of Appeal, the Respondent/Claimant’s legal heirs, who
are permitted to be brought on record, are at liberty to withdraw the
amount of compensation, if deposited by the State in the Reference
Court along with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn. Needless
to mention that the impugned order becomes executable.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

Shubham Talle

¶46

 34-IA-1245-2022.doc

¶47

10.All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.

¶48

 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶49

Page 6 of 6

¶50

Shubham Talle

The State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri P. Kale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri P. Kale

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

Lalita Timappa Gawda vs Sandeep Vishnu Mukadam

Laxmi Asbestos Products Ltd. Vs Ganpat Parappa Kamble (Since Deceased through L.R.S.) 1A. Kalabai Ganpat Kamble and Ors.

State of Maharashtra (through Collector,Kolhapur) Vs M.B.Patil(D.H.) Sonabai Mahadev Patil and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra (Thr. the Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.11, Kolhapur. Vs Sou.Madhuri Prakash Nale (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. 1.1) Shri.Prakash Jagannath Nale

Umashankar Maniklal . Vs Smt. Nanibai Moti Alias Nanibai P. Patel and Anr. .

The Stateof Maharashtra Vs Ananda Haibti Shinde