ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO. 898 OF APPEAL NO. 898 OF APPEAL NO. 898 OF 1988 1988 1988 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Gurupadappa Murugappa Hanji (deceased through his L.Rs.) & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.G.P.Mulekar for the Appellants. Mr.M.L.Patil for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th June, 2008 : 24th June, 2008 : 24th June, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- . This Second Appeal is filed by the State challenging the enhanced compensation grated by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli by order dated 07/10/1987 in Land Acquisition case No.4/1982 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act:- 2. In paragraph No.2 the observations are as under:- . "The area admeasuring 11 ares out of Survey No.171, 60 ares out of Survey No.172 and 1 H.-67 ares out of Survey No.172 from village Achkanhalli, Tq.Jat ( 2 ) were acquired for construction of M.I. Tank of village Revnal. The Land Acquisition Officer pronounced the award dated 23/12/1981 and determined the compensation at Rs.58,321-20 ps. and Rs.8749-68 ps. as solatium totalling Rs.67,080-88 ps. According to claimants, the price determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is too meagre and inadequate." 3. After considering the material placed on record as well as assessment made in another similar situated matter, the enhanced compensation to the extent of Rs.25,421/- as awarded cannot be said to be unreasonable or excess in the present fact and circumstances of the matter. On the contrary, it is reasonable compensation as assessed and awarded. Therefore, there is no interference in the same. 4. However, grant of additional compensation at 12% as mentioned in operative part of the award/ order and as contemplated under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and as the award is dated 23/12/1981, pursuant to the said provision itself and as it was ( 3 ) prior to 30/04/1982 and also in view of Supreme Court Supreme Court Supreme Court Judgment Judgment Judgment in Kashiben Bhikabai & Ors. Vs. Special in Kashiben Bhikabai & Ors. Vs. Special in Kashiben Bhikabai & Ors. Vs. Special Land Land Land Acquisition Officer (2002) 2, Supreme Court Acquisition Officer (2002) 2, Supreme Court Acquisition Officer (2002) 2, Supreme Court Cases, Cases, Cases, the said amount is impermissible. 5. Therefore, appeal filed by the State is partly allowed to the above extent. The rest of the award is maintained. The competent authority to modify, calculate the compensation within a reasonable time to avoid further delay. . No costs. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)