MundadaVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Thorugh Collector OsmanabadAnd Others...Mr v. V. Ingale
Legal Reasoning
903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odt(This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated 10.07.2024)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1536 OF 2014Bharati Satyanarayan MundadaVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Thorugh Collector OsmanabadAnd Others...Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for AppellantMrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3Mr. S. G. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent No. 2...WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2014Vijaykumar Satyanarayan Mundada And AnotherVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others…Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for AppellantMrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3Mr. S. C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1535 OF 2014Dipakkumar Satyanarayan MundadaVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Thorugh Collector OsmanabadAnd Others…Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for AppellantMrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3Mr. S. C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2...CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, JDATE:JUNE 26, 2024Page 1 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odtPER COURT : 1.These Appeals under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act (For short ‘Act’), 1894 take exceptionto the common judgment passed by the Reference Courtunder Section 18 of the Act being LAR Nos. 534/2001,141/2001 and 535/2001.2.In the present Appeals, Block No. 401admeasuring 3H 12 Ares in LAR No. 534/2001, Block No.401 admeasuring 1H 9 Ares in LAR No. 141/2001 and BlockNo. 420 admeasuring 2H 2 Ares in LAR No. 535/2001situated at village Shiradhon, Tq. Kallam, Dist.Osmanabad are involved, which lands are averred byClaimants. A notice under Section 4(1) of the Act waspublished in village Shiradhon on 29.06.1995. Section 6notice was published in Government Gazette on07.03.1996. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)divided the lands into four groups i.e., group no. I toV as per quality of lands and assessment of the landrevenue and determined the market value of the landafter considering acceptable sale instances. He alsoawarded separate compensation to the fruit bearingtrees and structures on the land to the claimants.Page 2 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odt3.Sine claimants were not satisfied with theaward and the compensation granted by SLAO, referencesmade under Section 18 of the Act before the ReferenceCourt. It is claimed by the claimants that landacquired were fertile and heavy expenses were incurredto improve its quality. It is also claimed by them thatthey used to take two crops in a year and the netannual income derived from the said land was Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Respondents filed writtenstatement and conducted that the compensation awardedwas inadequate. It is also claimed that after dulyconsidering the potentiality of the land and therelevant sale instances, the award impugned came to bepassed.4.The learned Reference Court framed commonissues and called upon claimants to prove that thecompensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer isinadequate and that they are entitled for the enhancedcompensation. Satynarayan Mundada, one of theclaimants, Vyankatrao Manikrao Ghogre, HorticulturalValuer and Ramchandra Baraskar, an Structural Valuerwere examined on behalf of the claimants. They alsoPage 3 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odtrelied upon the documentary evidence such as reports ofthe respective valuer and the sale instances Exhs. 16,17, 23 & 24. The learned Reference Court after takinginto consideration the evidence led before it enhancedthe compensation by passing following order:O R D E R1References are partly allowed withproportionate costs.2The respondents do pay to the claimantsthe additional market value of the acquiredlands as under -Sr.No.L.A.R.No.BlockNo.AreaAdditional Market ValueTotalLandTreesStructure1534/20014043 H 12 Areaout of 4H22 Ares4,43,615 (3 H 7 Ares)45,000(5 Ares)10004,89,6152141/20014011 H 9 AresOut of 4 H22 Ares1,57,505 (1 H 96 Ares)--10001,58,5053535/20014202 H 2 Ares2,98,900 (1 H 96 Ares)38,000 (6 Ares)30003,39,9003The respondents do pay to the claimantssolatium @ 30% on the above additionalmarket value; interest under Section 28 ofthe Act on the said additional market valueand on the above solatium @ 9% per annumfor the first year from the date ofNotification under Section 4(1) of the L.A.Act and @ 15% per annum for subsequentyears till the date of realization of theentire amount.4The respondents do pay to the claimantsPage 4 of 12
Legal Reasoning
903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odt12% per annum on the additional marketvalue from the date of publication ofnotice under Section 4(1) of the Act of1894 till the date of the award i.e. till16.06.1999.5The above compensation is in addition tocompensation awarded by SLAO. Hence thecompensation awarded by SLAO and paid tothe claimants shall not be deducted fromthe amounts which will be calculated as perabove order.5.At the outset, Mr. Ingale, learned Counsel forthe Claimants/Appellants, submit that in respect ofacquisition of land under the same notification andfrom the same village, this Court has orderedenhancement of the compensation in First Appeals Nos.654 of 2014 to 657 of 2014 by judgment dated 02.04.2019directing the payment of compensation at the rate ofRs. 2890 per Are for the acquired lands. According tohim, said judgment has not been challenged before theHon’ble the Supreme Court and as such, it has attainedfinality and hence, present Appeals be disposed of inthe same terms. In support of his submissions, heplaced reliance on judgment in case of Bayaji TatyaKalunge vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 771.Page 5 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odt6.Mr. Arora, learned Counsel for the AcquiringBody in First Appeal Nos. 1535 of 2014 and 778 of 2014,submitted that no evidence was led by all the claimantsbefore the Reference Court and mandate of law that theclaimants are required to prove their caseindependently has not been followed. This Court,however, does not find substance in the said contentionas all three references were decided by commonjudgment. It is recorded in paragraph 9 of the judgmentthat by consent of the parties evidence is recordedinto LAR no. 534/2001. It is thus clear that as per theconsensuses between the parties, evidence was recordedin 1 reference and was read in evidence in otherproceedings. Thus, Respondents are now estopped fromraising objection with regard to the non examination ofclaimants in respective proceedings. This argument,therefore, stands rejected.7.He further argued that merely because sameaward is passed in respect of the lands covered by thesame notification, the said order cannot apply ipsofacto to the present case. To support his submissions,he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’blePage 6 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odtSupreme Court in case of Chandrashekhar and ors. vs.Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2009 SC3012 wherein test has been laid down for admissibilityof the previous judgment of the same Court. He alsosubmits that the order sought to be relied upon passedby this Court in Appeals mentioned herein above iscontrary to the judgment of the Full Bench of thisCourt in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash ShivaRangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J, 457, and therefore, in anyevent the interest, if any needs to be granted, thesame can be granted from the date of award and not fromthe date of acquisition of the land. He further arguedthat once the claimants are relying upon the judgmentof this Court for the determination of amount ofcompensation payable towards the land, they are notentitled for any separate/additional compensation forthe trees and structures etc.8.Mr. Bhalerao, learned Counsel for theacquiring body in First Appeal No. 1536/2014, submitsthat even on the facts of the case, the order passed bythis Court cannot apply in the present case. It is hissubmission that it was held therein that the land inPage 7 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odtquestions were irrigated lands and such evidence isabsent herein this case. He also sought to drawattention of the Court to the fact that the particularsale instance was accepted on the basis of fact thatthe land in question therein was at a distance of about1/5th km from the said land and for want of any suchevidence on record, it cannot be held that the saidjudgment would apply to the claimants herein.In response to these submissions, learnedCounsel for the claimants pointed out the award passedby the SLAO wherein the awards were passed on the basisof quality of the land and the lands bearing Block Nos.410, 402 form part of the same group, it is submittedthat as far as Block No. 420 is concerned, the judgmentpassed by this Court pertains to the part of the landfrom the Block No. 420 itself. Thus, it is hiscontention that there is no substance in the objectionraised by the other side. He further submits that theclaimants have placed evidence on record before theReference Court indicating that the said lands had welltherein which was in working condition. Thus, accordingto him, the lands in question are also irrigated landsPage 8 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odtand, therefore, there is no reason or justification notto apply order as passed in FA nos. 654/2014 and othermatters, to present case. 9.Perusal of the record indicates that the landsin the present Appeals are acquired in the samenotification as the lands involved in FA Nos. 654/2014and other matters. As far as the Appeal No. 1535/2014is concerned, the land involved therein is Block No.420 situated at village Shiradhon. The judgments inFirst Appeal sought to be relied upon are also passedin respect of the land bearing Block No. 420 of thesame village. Considering the fact that while passingaward the SLAO categorized lands for the purpose ofdetermination of compensation on the basis of itsquality and area of revenue assessment, therefore,there would be no reason or justification not toenhance the compensation for portion of law from BlockNo. 420 in the tune with the said judgment.10.As far as the Block no. 401 is concerned, itcomes in the group wherein the Block No. 402 isincluded i.e., Group No. IV in the award passed by theSLAO. This also shows that the quality of the land isPage 9 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odtsame and there would be no justification to take anydifferent view. The evidence on record indicates thatboth these lands are having wells which are in workingcondition, as such, the lands are seasonally irrigated.11.Having regard to the above discussion, thisCourt finds no reason not to apply the judgment passedin First Appeals No. 654/2014 with connected matters toland bearing Block No. 402 the present case. It is,therefore, held that in all three appeals claimants areentitled to get compensation at Rs. 2890 per Are forthe acquired lands in question.12.This Court however finds substance in thecontention of the Counsel for the Acquiring Body thatno separate compensation can be granted for the fruitbearing trees as well as structures standing on thelands in question since this Court has granted lump sumcompensation to similarly placed land owners. When theclaimants are seeking to place reliance on the judgmentpassed in above First Appeals, the same judgment willhave to be accepted in toto and not in piecemeal.13.In case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) it isPage 10 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odtheld that except in cases where the possession is takenin accordance with Section 17 of the Act, the landowner would be entitled for the interest as per Section34 of the Act necessarily from the date of passing ofthe award under Section 11 of the Act. In view of theposition of law settled by Full Bench of this Court,claimants would be entitled to get interest on amountof compensation from the date of passing of award. TheAppeals, therefore, are allowed in following terms:ORDERa)Claimants are entitled to receive enhancedcompensation at Rs. 2890 per Are for theacquired lands i.e., Block No. 401admeasuring 3H 12 Ares, Block No. 401admeasuring 1H 9 Ares and Block No. 420admeasuring 2H 2 Ares situated at villageShiradhon. b)Claimants would be entitled for interest at12% p.a. on the amount of compensation fromthe date of passing of award.c)Claimants are entitled for solatium of 30%under Section 23(2) of the Act.d)Claimants are entitled for enhancedcompensation and would be entitled to claiminterest under Section 34 of the LandAcquisition Act @ 9% per annum from thedate of Collector’s Award. Similarlyclaimants would be entitled to get interestPage 11 of 12 903-FA-1536-2014+ II.odt@ 9% per annum for first year under Section28 of the Act and thereafter 15% per annumfrom the date of award till realization ofthe amount. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) MalaniPage 12 of 12