1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.467 OF1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.468 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.469 OF 1991 Date of decision:16/4/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/467-91fagr 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.467 OF 1991 WITH 1. Pandharinath s/o Ganpati Jagtap, died, through his proposed L.Rs. 1-A) Ganpati Pandharinath Jagtap, Age 40 years, Occ. Agri., 1-B) Dnyaneshwar s/o Pandharinath Jagtap, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri. Both r/o Bhatangali Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. (Amendment made as per order dt.1.2.2008 in C.A.No.1208/2006) ...APPELLANT (Orig.claimant) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT (Orig.Respondent) ... Mr.Umakant Patil, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. S.D.Kaldate, AGP, for respondent State. ... FIRST APPEAL NO.468 OF 1991 with Bibhishan s/o Madhavrao Jagtap, Age 47 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o. Bhatangli, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 3 ...APPELLANT (Orig.Claimants) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr.Umakant Patil, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. S.D.Kaldate, AGP, for respondent. ... FIRST APPEAL NO.469 OF 1991 Namdeo s/o Narayan Jagtap, Age 48 years, Occu: Agril., r/o Bhatangali, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT (Orig.claimants) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT (Orig.Respondent) ... Mr. Umakant Patil, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. S.D.Kaldate, AGP for respondent. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :16/4/2010 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appeals are admitted on 19.12.1991. 4 The appellant in each of the appeal feels aggrieved by the award, Rs.6,000/- per acre, including the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants also feel aggrieved in ignoring statutory entitlement of interest by the learned Judge. 2. The undisputed facts are: The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dt.20th Jan.,1983. The award came to be passed on 19.9.1986. The lands of the claimants and several others were acquired for construction of Lower Terna Tank. In similarly placed situation, in First Appeal Nos. 574/1992, 599/1991, for the lands at Makani, where notification under Section 4 was dt.2nd Dec.,1982, and the award was passed on 18.9.1986, this Court enhanced the compensation at Rs.17,000/-. 3. Mr.Patil, Counsel, insists that, applying same scale of principles and particularly, when the lands in the award at Makani, being of difference of one day, the appellants/claimants in this case should receive the same treatment. 4. Learned Counsel has taken recourse to the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.39/1993 (Ratanbai Vs. State) dt.6th Feb.,2009, which was in relation to LAR No.29/1989 dt.28.2.1990, 5 relating to the lands situate at village Bhatangli and, this Court enhanced the compensation at Rs.17,000/- per acre for the acquired land. In First Appeal No.134/1994 ( Shivaji V. State), by order dt.25.3.2010, in LAR No.25/1989, dt.4th May, 1991, this Court, enhanced the compensation from Rs.14,000/- per acre to Rs.17,000/- per acre with consequential statutory benefits. 5. A sale instance at village Sastur, subject matter of First Appeal No.39/1993, in which the award was dt.30th March, 1988 and the notification was of dt.5.6.1984, the sale instance was of Rs.14,000/- per acre dt. 28.6.1982. Considering the notification to be of 5.6.1984, additional enhancement from the amount of Rs.14,000/- to Rs.17,000/- was made. Same parameters will not be available to be applied with equal force as the notification in the present case is dt.20th Jan.,1983, while the award is dt.19.9.1986. Consequently, at the most, the claimants in each of the appeal shall be eligible and entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per acre. It is a matter of record, at Exh.8, in these Land Acquisition References, there was a sale deed for Rs.10,000/- per acre, however, it was for a dry land and the lands in the present appeal being nearby bank of river, the consequential benefit of enhancement 6 would be to the extent of Rs.14,000/- per acre. The request to consider the orders in First Appeal No.134/1994 or First Appeal No.39/1993, recorded by this Court, will not be available with the same force in the particular facts of the present case since the notification is dt. 20th Jan.,1983. 6. In the result, the award of the learned Reference Court is modified from Rs.6,000/- per acre to Rs.14,000/- per acre, including the amount of compensation granted and received from the Land Acquisition Officer. The statutory benefits which the learned Judge has applied is on wrong notion, the statutory benefits shall be made applicable and payable to each of the claimants as per the prevailing Rules of State Government - Land Acquisition Rules, in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, ignoring the 9 per cent interest referred by the learned Judge in clause (v) of the order dt.21.7.1989. The appeals are partly allowed in above terms. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/467-91fagr