( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.128 OF 1990 FIRST APPEAL NO.128 OF 1990 FIRST APPEAL NO.128 OF 1990 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer; No.16, Kolhapur 2. The State of Maharashtra ..Appellants (Orig.opponents) V/s. Shri Shamrao Bhausaheb Patil ..Respondent (Orig.claimant) ...... Smt. Geeta S. Mulekar, AGP for the appellant-State None for the Respondents ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The property of the respondent came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 22nd January, 1985 in the Land Acquisition case ( 2 ) No.243/3/4/17 made by the Land Acquisition No.16/Kolhapur. The respondent was a owner of the land admeasuring 41.80 sq.meters with the structure standing thereon. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award to the tune of Rs.80,902/-. The respondent was aggrieved by the said order and hence he preferred the land Reference No.54 of 1985 under Section 18 of the said Act in the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, District Kolhapur. That reference came to be decided by judgement dated 17th February, 1989 which is the subject matter of this appeal. Before the learned additional District Judge, the respondent was examined. Respondent stepped into the witness box and examined one more person by name Shayam D. Pathak. The respondent claimed the compensation under the following head namely; land value Rs.12,540/-, structure value Rs.25,240/-, reconstruction charges Rs.60,000/-, loss of business Rs.10,000/-. The learned Additional District Judge after considering the entire matter granted Rs.14,630/- towards land value, Rs.22,652/- towards cost of the structure, Rs.29,372/- towards damage on account of injurious affection, Rs.60,000/- towards damage on account of savings, Rs.6,000/- towards damage on account of loss of profession and arrived at sum of Rs.1,32,654/- as the amount to be considered as the market value. Solatium and interest as per the ( 3 ) provisions of the Act were granted. 2. The learned Additional District Judge granted Rs.14,640/- towards land cost though in the claim the respondent had claimed Rs.12,540/- towards the land cost. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant took me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the reasons arrived at by learned Additional District Judge to grant Rs.14,630/- as land value as are not proper and it was necessary for the learned Additional District Judge to give specific reasons as to why the amount in excess of Rs.2090/- is being awarded to the respondent towards land cost. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant as reasons in paragraph 10 cannot be accepted and to that extent a sum of Rs.2090/- ought to have be reduced however taking a round figure I am inclined to reduce sum of Rs.2,000/- from the amount granted under the head land cost. 3. The learned Additional District Judge has granted Rs.29,372/- by way of damage on account of injurious affection and it is pertinent to note that no claim was made under this head in the application demanding compensation. In the application, at paragraph 8, it is stated that the respondent has spent Rs.29,372/- to ( 4 ) reconstruct the type of the building. It was necessary for the respondent to lead evidence as to why such a figure should be arrived at. The learned Additional District Judge has recorded a finding in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment that there is no evidence in support of such a claim to the extent of Rs.29,372/-. The relevant words are as under. "Although there is no specific evidence as to the loss sustained on account of injurious affection". 4. The learned Additional District Judge has arrived at this figure of Rs.29,372/- without there being any evidence. If this be so, the learned advocate for the appellants was right in contending that the amount of Rs.29,372/- could not have been granted. Reading of the paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the amount of Rs.29,372/- is based on the inferences. Hence, this amount of Rs.29,372/- has been granted in an improper manner and the same is required to be ignored while calculating the market value. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid I am inclined to observe that Rs.2090/- and Rs.29,372/- are required to be excluded while calculating market value. The ( 5 ) sum total of these figures turn out to be 31,000/- and odd. Taking a round figure, I am inclined to deduct a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the total amount arrived at by the learned District Judge from Rs.1,32,654/-. In view of the above discussion, the market value will have to be fixed at Rs.1,02,654/-. which can be again rounded up to Rs.1,03,000/-. 6. On this amount of Rs.1,03,000/-, the respondent is entitled to solatium @30% and interest @12% as per Section 23(1-A) of the said Act from the date of notification i.e. 23.1.1975 till date of award i.e. 22nd January, 1985. Once the aforesaid figures are finalised, further calculations as set out in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment can be arrived and necessary amount can be paid to the respondent. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, the first appeal can be disposed of. Hence, the following order is passed :- ORDER ORDER ORDER . A sum of Rs. Rs.1,03,000/- is fixed as market value. An amount at the rate of 30% on Rs.1,03,000/- shall be payable as solatium. Similarly, interest @12% per annum shall be payable on Rs.1,03,000/- from 23rd January, ( 6 ) 1975 to 22nd January, 1985. The sum total of the above three items shall be termed as said amount and from the said amount sum of Rs.80,902/- shall be deducted being the amount granted by Special Land Acquisition Officer. The amount so arrived at shall be termed as "additional amount". The appellants shall pay to the respondent the amount so termed as "additional amount" alongwith the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 7th February, 1985 one year thereafter, on the additional amount and at the rate of 15% per annum on this amount since after expiry of one year period from the date of taking over possession till the satisfaction of the entire claim. . In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)