Bombay High CourtThe State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Mohan Bajirao Abhimane on 12 March, 2018Author:Sunil P. DeshmukhBench:Sunil P. Deshmukh{1}                               fa1998-16

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

                       FIRST APPEAL NO.1998 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 1.       Ajinath Waku Abhimane                             RESPONDENTS

 2.       Laxmibai Ajinath Abhimane,

          Both Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
          R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
          District - Beed
                                 WITH
                    FIRST APPEAL NO.1999 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Vishnu Suryabhan Anarse                     RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed
                              WITH
                FIRST APPEAL NO.2000 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed
          VERSUS




::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                  ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::
                                     {2}                               fa1998-16


 Mohan Bajirao Abhimane                      RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed
                              WITH
                FIRST APPEAL NO.2001 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Santram Kanhu Anarse                         RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed
                              WITH
                 FIRST APPEAL NO.2002 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Namdev Bajirao Abhimane                     RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed
                              WITH
                FIRST APPEAL NO.2003 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed




::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                  ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::
                                     {3}                               fa1998-16

          VERSUS

 1.       Jagannath Dagadu Shende                          RESPONDENTS

 2.       Ashok Dagadu Shende

 3.       Sominath Dagadu Shende

          All Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
          R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
          District - Beed
                                  WITH
                    FIRST APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Rakhmaji Sakharam Shende                    RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed
                              WITH
                FIRST APPEAL NO.2005 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Yadav Digamber Abhimane (Died) LRs                         RESPONDENTS

          1.      Smt. Anandibai Yadav Abhimane
                  Age - 75 years, Occ - Agriculture
                  R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
                  District - Beed




::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                  ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::
                                     {4}                               fa1998-16

          2.      Ashok Yadav Abhimane
                  Age - 50 years, Occ and R/o As above

          3.      Vilas Yadav Abhimane
                  Age - 45 years, Occ & R/o As above

          4.      Laxmi Sanjay Jadhav
                  Age - 41 years, Occ & R/o As above

                                  WITH
                       FIRST APPEAL NO.2006 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Radhabai Govind Pacharne                    RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed
                              WITH
                FIRST APPEAL NO.2007 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed

 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Bhamabai Eshwarlal Waghmare                 RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed
                              WITH
                FIRST APPEAL NO.2008 OF 2016

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                              APPELLANTS
          Through - The Collector, Beed




::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                  ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::
                                       {5}                             fa1998-16


 2.       The Executive Engineer,
          B. I. Division, Beed, District - Beed

          VERSUS

 Ramdas Dattoba Karande                                      RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Dongargan, Taluka - Ashti,
 District - Beed

                               .......
 Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for the appellants - State
 Mr. C. K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent - claimants
                               .......

                               [CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

                                 DATE : 12th MARCH, 2018

 ORAL JUDGMENT :1.       These first appeals are preferred by the State undersection 54of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against common

 judgment and award by Land Acquisition Reference Court at

 Beed, enhancing compensation for acquisition of lands granted

 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.2.       Compensation granted by Special Land Acquisition Officer

 for acquisition of lands ranges between Rs.590/- per Are to

 Rs.650/- per Are in this group of first appeals.3.       The Reference Court has enhanced rate of compensation to

 Rs.2000/- per Are for acquisition of lands.::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                  ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::{6}                                   fa1998-164.         Learned AGP contends that it cannot be said that with

 reference to evidence on record, the extent of enhancement

 awarded by reference court is sustainable. It is submitted that

 compensation as granted by reference court is excessive and

 exorbitant.        Evidence   on   record   is    insufficient       to        bear

 enhancement in compensation.5.       Mr. Phule, learned AGP appearing for appellants - the State

 contends that not only that increase in rate of compensation has

 been exorbitant, but the land acquisition reference court had

 also been in error in granting interest undersection 34of the

 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of possession. He

 submits that taking into account two decisions, one by the Full

 Bench of this court in the case of "State of Maharashtra V/s Kailash

 Shiva Rangari" reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and the other by

 learned Single Judge of this court at Nagpur in the case of "The

 State of Maharashtra V/s Ramesh Tukaram Meshram" reported on 2018 (1)

 ALL MR 645 wherein it is considered thatsections 28and34of the

 Land Acquisition Act are pari materia, the date of grant of

 interest and its operation would be governed by decision of the

 Full Bench. He, therefore, submits that clauses 3 and 4 of the

 impugned award passed by the land acquisition reference court

 has been rendered untenable.::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                      ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::{7}                               fa1998-166.       On the other hand, Mr. C. K. Shinde, learned advocate

 appearing for the respondents - claimants contends that as a

 matter of fact, learned judge of the reference court has been in

 error in absolutely disregarding Exhibits-21, 22, the two sale

 instances of adjoining village Kada, Taluka - Ashti, District-Beed.

 Had those sale instances been taken into account, the claims of

 land owners as made in the reference petitions ought to have

 been and could have been allowed. He further submits that while

 Exhibit-23, a sale instance of 1995 has been taken into account,

 the same has been given a treatment working out a lower rate of

 compensation in respect of acquired lands. He submits that in

 any case, compensation granted under the award impugned in

 the first appeals is on lower side than is due to the claimants and

 submits that there is no substance in challenge to computation

 of valuation of lands.7.       Mr. Shinde goes on to submit that claimants' lands had

 been taken in possession even before notification undersection

 4of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued and in the

 circumstances, the authorities hitherto had been constrained to

 award interest from the date of possession and the same may

 not be found fault with.::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018              ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::{8}                                  fa1998-168.       Having regard to aforesaid submissions, one may have to

 take into account thatsection 4notification for acquisition of

 claimants' land had been issued on 24 th July, 2003 and the award

 had been made by Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31 st

 January, 2008. Sale instance at Exhibit-23 is a sale instance of

 11th August, 1995, which is long before notification undersection

 4had been issued in respect of acquisition of present lands. The

 reference court appears to have considered value of lands with

 reference to sale instance under the circumstances works out to

 be @ Rs.2000/- per Are and while considering acquisition of

 claimants' land rate of valuation of land should undergo 30%

 reduction, since sale deed is not in respect of a land which is

 immediately abutting the acquired lands. The reference court,

 thereafter considered 10% increase in the rate of value of land,

 as arrived at would be a reasonable increase and thus has

 worked out rate of Rs.2380/- per Are and reduced the same to

 Rs.2000/- per Are, since the reference court in group of other

 references viz., Land Acquisition References No. 421 of 2010 and

 other companion matters had worked out land acquisition rate to

 be Rs.2000/- per Are for seasonally irrigated lands, which had

 been      acquired        for   construction   for    village      tank      No.6      of

 Dongargan. The reference court, thus, considered that it would::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                          ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::{9}                               fa1998-16

 be reasonable to grant compensation @ Rs.2000/- per Are to

 present claimants as well. The court further, in some of the land

 acquisition references considered that present set of claimants

 are not entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of trees,

 wells and stone bunds.9.       Looking at computation of land acquisition compensation

 and its rate, as considered by the reference court, it cannot be

 said to be in any way erroneous or for that matter there is any

 other contrary evidence available on record which would impeach

 rate of compensation granted by the reference court. It does not

 appear that the decision rendered in respect of rate of land

 acquisition compensation granted by the reference court is liable

 to be disturbed. The computation appears to have been done

 reasonably and taking into account evidence, as has been placed

 on record. As a matter of fact, the two sale instances, Exhibit-21

 and Exhibit-22 are of much higher amounts than sale instance at

 Exhibit-23. In the circumstances, so far as enhancement

 component involved under award under reference is concerned,

 the same would not be liable to be disturbed.10.      Full Bench of this court in the case of "State of Maharashtra V/s

 Kailash Shiva Rangari" reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 under::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                   ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::{10}                                 fa1998-16

 paragraphs No. 32 clause (iii) and 33 (a) of said judgment has

 held as under -" 32. (iii) Where the possession of the land under acquisition is taken
       prior to issuance of notification undersection 4 (1), then there would be
       no question of invoking the urgency clause undersection 17of the said
       Act and the interest undersection 34shall start running from the date of
       passing of the award.33.      In view of above, we answer the question of reference as under:(a)     If the possession is taken before the notification undersection 4
        (1)of the Land Acquisition Act is published and / or before the award is
        passed, the landowner would be entitled for interest as persection 34necessarily from the date of passing of the award undersection 11of the
        said Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance
        withsection 17of the said Act and in that situation only, the provision ofsection 34of the said Act shall start operating from the date of
        possession. "11.      Further, learned Single Judge of this court at Nagpur in the

 case of "The State of Maharashtra V/s Ramesh Tukaram Meshram" reported

 on 2018 (1) ALL MR 645 has held thatsections 28and34of the

 Land Acquisition Act, 1893 are pari materia. They are identical

 with exception of stage.Section 28relates to interest on

 enhancement whereassection 34deals with interest on award

 by special land acquisition officer / collector.12.      As such, as far as interest in present matters directed from

 the date of possession is concerned which is although sought to

 be justified on behalf of the claimants, yet do not appear to be in

 a position of any other prevailing position of law in this respect

 and overcome decision of full bench and the subsequent decision::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018                          ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::{11}                             fa1998-16

 (supra), the direction and date of award of interest will have to

 undergo modification, pursuant to full bench judgment (supra).13.      In the circumstances, clauses 3 and 4 of the operative

 order under decision in land acquisition references will have to

 undergo modification in tune with the full bench judgment and

 as such, the interest undersections 28and34of the Land

 Acquisition Act, payable to the claimants would be from the date

 of award and not as observed by the reference court, from the

 date of possession.14.      With the modification to aforesaid extent, first appeals

 stand partly allowed and rest of the challenge in the first appeals

 stand dismissed.[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]


 drp/fa1998-16::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2018              ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 10:06:13 :::