1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9285 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and another ...Appellants Versus Laxman s/o Vitthal Tupe ...Respondent ..... Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for the appellant Mr. M. R. Sonwane, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2004, passed by the learned Joint C.J.S.D. at Ahmednagar in Land Reference Application No. 183 of 1997. The learned trial Judge disposed of the Reference relying upon the judgment rendered by him on 4.12.2004 in Land Reference Application No. 182 of 1997. 2 I have heard Shri Korde, learned AGP in support of this appeal and Shri Sonwane, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 3 Admit. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 4 As set out earlier, the impugned order is based upon the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Judge in Land Reference Application No. 182 of 1997. Said order was challenged by the State by preferring first appeal No. 1250 of 2007. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court (R.M. Borde,J.) on 21.1.2008. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy, raised in the present appeal and in first appeal No. 1250 of 2007, is identical and the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 in first appeal No. 1250 of 2007. 5 In the present case, it is the case of the respondent claimant that the possession of the land under acquisition was taken on 1.9.1982 and consequently the Trial Judge was justified in awarding the interest @ Rs.9% p.a. for the first year i.e. from 1.9.1982 and after the first year @ 15% p.a.. The said challenge was considered by this Court and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain Vs. D.D.A. And others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1904, it was held that the direction issued by the trial court contained in para 2 (iii) of the operative order, as regards interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and @ 15% p.a. for the subsequent years from the date of possession till excess payment is made, was clearly illegal. It was 3 noted that the benefits under the said Act can be awarded from the date of Section 4 notification and anything anterior to section 4 notification, is required to be overlooked. The proceeding under the land acquisition Act can be said to have been initiated only after issuance of Section 4 notification. In view of this, the award of interest anterior to Section 4 notification by the reference Court is illegal. In view of this, the appeal will have to be allowed partly. Direction 2(iii) of the order dated 4.12.2004, stands modified and it is held that the respondent claimant is entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 9% p.a. for the first year and Rs.15% p.a. for the subsequent years from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 dated 21.1.1993. The respondent-claimant will be at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy for claiming damages on account of taking over possession anterior to Section 4 notification. With these modification, the appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid directions. There shall, however, no order as to costs. 6 In view of disposal of main first appeal, no orders are necessary on the civil application No.9285 of 2009 and the civil application is accordingly disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) rlj/