High Court

Legal Reasoning

{1} FA 2660.24 F.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 2660 OF 2024WITHC.A. NO. 7787 OF 2023&C.A. NO. 16320 OF 2022THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRATHROUGH COLLECTOR, BEEDVERSUSASHRAJI NAMDEO BEDRE AND OTHERS.…Mr. V.S. Badakh, AGP for appellantMr. D.A. Bide, Advocate for respondents. CORAM :S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 23.1.2025.PRONOUNCED ON : 30.1.2025. O R D E R :-1.The appellant impugns the judgment and award dated24.3.2015 passed by Reference Court in LAR No. 555 of 2011, by whichthe claim filed by respondents/claimants under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act, has been allowed. 2.Respondents/claimants were owners of lands situated atvillage Kotan, Taluka Patoda, District Beed which has been acquired forthe purpose of construction of village Tank No. 4, Kotan. According toclaimants, possession of land was taken on 4.7.1996 by privatenegotiation. However, notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act was published on 20.8.2009 and finally award underSection 11 came to be passed on 12.10.2010. After receipt of notice {2} FA 2660.24 F.odtunder Section 12(2) of the Act, the claimants presented references underSection 18 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3.The Reference Court, after evaluation of evidence, partlyallowed the references and awarded enhanced compensation alongwithstatutory benefits. Reference Court awarded interest under Section 28 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, on the enhanced compensation from the date ofactual possession i.e. 4.7.1996 till realization of the entire amount. 4.Aggrieved by the award passed by Reference Court, the Stateof Maharashtra and Acquiring Body have filed present appeals underSection 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.5.Mr. V.S. Badakh, learned AGP submits that the ReferenceCourt erroneously held that reference was filed within limitation.According to him, the Reference Court committed gross error of lawwhile awarding interest on enhanced compensation from the date ofpossession. Relying upon law laid down by this court in case of State ofMaharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari reported in 2016(3) Mh,L.J. 457and Lalita Kumari vs. State reported in 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 743, he wouldsubmit that interest on enhanced compensation in admissible underSection 28 of the Act from the date of award passed under Section 11 ofthe Act. He submits that this is not a case, where emergency clauseunder Section 17 was invoked while taking possession prior to passingaward. He urges that appeal may be allowed and award passed by theReference Court may be appropriately modified.6.Per contra, Mr. D.A. Bide, learned advocate appearing for {3} FA 2660.24 F.odtrespondents/claimants supports the award. He submits that evidentlypossession of acquired land is taken on 4.7.1996 as can be seen from thenotification dated 20.8.2004 issued under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act. If claimants were deprived of possession from 4.7.1996,certainly they are entitled to receive the statutory benefit i.e. interestfrom the date of handing over possession. He would point out thatrespondents have not otherwise compensated claimants by releasingrental compensation as per the Scheme of Government. Mr. Bide wouldtherefore urge that there is no substance in the appeal.7.Having considered submissions advanced, apparently landsof claimants have been acquired for purpose of construction of Kotanvillage tank. There is hardly dispute as to the date of possession of landacquired by the appellants. The appeals are filed mainly on two grounds.Firstly, References were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitationand secondly, award of interest from the date of possession is inconsistentwith law.8.So far as issue of limitation is concerned, undisputedly,notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was received by claimants on5.4.2011. The claimants presented reference before the Land AcquisitionOfficer on 5.5.2011 i.e. on 30th day. There is no much controversy onaforesaid aspects. Hence Reference Court has rightly held that referencesare filed well within limitation. The limitation prescribed for filingof Reference under Section 18 is six moths from the date of service ofnotice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Certainly, presentation of theReference in this case is well within period of limitation as prescribedunder Section 15(2)(b) of the Act. hence, there is no substance in the {4} FA 2660.24 F.odtfirst contention of the appellants.9.Second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is thataward of interest payable under Section 28 of Act from the date ofpossession is inconsistent with law. This Court in the case of Kailas ShivaRangari (supra) has held that interest under Section 28 of the LandAcquisition Act has to be awarded from the date of award Under Section11 of Act, although possession might have taken by private negotiationsprior to passing of such award. Exception to the rule can be made whenemergency clause under Section 17 has been invoked.10.It appears that Reference Court has granted interest onenhanced compensation from the date of possession i.e. 4.7.1996. Awardto that extent is certainly inconsistent with the legal position that hasbeen crystallized by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of KailasRangari (supra). In that view of the matter, the award of ReferenceCourt deserves to be modified, directing payment of interest on theenhanced compensation from the date of award of L.A.O. under Section11 of the Act i.e. 12.10.2010.11.Mr. Bide, learned advocate appearing for claimants relyingupon the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 575 of 2022 dated 31.1.2023in case of Ashok Masu Bansode another Vs. State of Maharashtra andothers, Dasrao Yadeo Marane vs. State of Maharashtra reported in2022(3) All M.R. and decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofMaimuna Banu Hamid Ali Khan Vs. State and others AIR 2003 SC3698, submits that that claimants are entitled for rental compensationfrom date of handing over possession till passing of the award. He {5} FA 2660.24 F.odtsubmits that since amount as per impugned award is already depositedby appellant including interest as per the award passed by the ReferenceCourt the amount of excess interest may be adjusted towards rentalcompensation. 12.It is true that claimants have right to receive rentalcompensation. However, this court cannot adjudicate upon entitlement ofclaimant, particularly in appeal filed by State. It would be for competentauthority to determine exact compensation admissible to claimant as perscheme. Claimants are at liberty to pursue their claim for grant of rentalcompensation before the competent authority and also seek adjustmentof interest amount already deposited by the Acquiring Body in pursuanceof impugned award. In that view of the matter following order ispassed :-O R D E R(i)The first appeal is partly allowed;(ii)The judgment and award passed by the Reference court is modified to the extent of Clause No.4 and same is replaced as under :-"Opponents do pay interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and15 % p.a. for subsequent years on excess compensation fromthe date of award passed under section 11 by LAO(12.10.2010) till realization of the entire amount as per theSection 28.”(iii)Rest of the award as passed by Reference court and operativepart of the impugned order shall remain undisturbed.(iv) Civil application, if any, stands disposed of.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] grt/-