| |
CDJ 2026 BHC 297
|
| Case No : First Appeal No. 571 of 2023 with First Appeal Nos. 572, 1774, 1775 of 2023 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Parties : Subhadrabai & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Beed & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: Shubham D. Jaybhar h/f. Dattatraya Jayabhar, Advocates. For the Respondents: S.N. Morampalle, N.D. Raje & S.V. Hange, AGPs, Hemant V. Dhage, Rahul A. Tambe, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 13-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-AUG 6525,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
2. Catch Words:
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Reference Court
- Sale instances
- Irrigated land
- Dry land
- Rental compensation
- Deficit court fees
- Interest
- Statutory benefits
3. Summary:
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for lands acquired in Village Nipani Jawalka. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had awarded compensation at Rs. 690 per Are, treating all lands as dry. The Reference Court enhanced this to Rs. 2,000 per Are for dry lands and Rs. 2,500 per Are for irrigated lands. The appellants argued that all lands were irrigated and relied on sale instances to claim higher compensation. The Court found errors in the Reference Court’s assessment, particularly regarding the date of notification and classification of lands. It accepted a sale instance (Exhibit-22) for Rs. 2,922 per Are for dry lands and enhanced it to Rs. 4,383 per Are for semi-irrigated lands. The Court also awarded rental compensation at 9% per annum and addressed delays in payment of deficit court fees, holding appellants entitled to statutory benefits for part of the delay period.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 02.05.2015 passed by the Reference Court awarding inadequate compensation. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the award are common. Hence, all the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The lands of the appellants from village Nipani Jawalka, Taluka Georai, District Beed were acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Act of which last date of publication was 11.07.2005. The award was passed on 15.06.2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) treated all the lands as dry lands and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.690/- per Are. The Reference Court treated the lands in First Appeal Nos.571 of 2023, 572 of 2023 and 3104 of 2023 as dry lands whereas the lands in First Appeal Nos.1774 of 2023 and 1775 of 2023 were treated as irrigated lands. The Reference Court fixed the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs.2000/- per Are for non-irrigated lands.
4. Mr. Shubham D. Jaybhar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all seven sale instances (Exhibits-16 to 22) pressed into service were discarded by the Reference Court. The reliance is placed on sale instance at Exhibits-18 and in the alternative on Exhibit-22. It is submitted that all the lands are irrigated lands and the evidence to that effect is ignored. It is submitted that the last date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was 11.07.2005 which is mistaken in rejecting the sale instance at Exhibit-22. It is submitted that the Reference Court committed illegality in fixing the rate at Rs.2000/- per Are for dry lands and Rs.2500/- per Are for irrigated lands by relying upon previous judgment of the Reference Court in other matters. It is further submitted that no fault can be attributed to the appellants, for belated payment of deficit court fees and for any delay in referring the matter to the Reference Court. The claim for rental compensation is also pressed into service.
5. Per contra, Mr. H. V. Dhage, learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body submitted that sale instance at Exhibit-22 is rightly discarded by the Reference Court and the other sale instances are also not compatible. It is submitted that all aspects of the matter are duly considered by the Reference Court and there is no need to cause any interference.
6. Mr. Rahul A. Tambe, learned counsel appearing for acquiring body in one of the appeals submitted that though the references were filed on 18.01.2008, they were registered only on 11.08.2014. The lapses of six years are attributable to the appellants for which they are not entitled to any statutory benefits. It is submitted that the appellants were casual and failed to pay the deficit court fees for which their references lingered.
7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The lands are acquired for the purpose of Village Tank No.2. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in Government Gazette on 13.01.2005 and the last date of publication is 11.07.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Act. It shall be treated as the date of notification. In the present matter, the Reference Court erred in treating 13.01.2005 as the relevant date of notification.
8. Following are the material particulars of the appeals:
Sr. No.
| Name of Claimants
| F.A.No.
| LAR No.
| Gut No/Survey No.
| Area
| Rate granted by SLAO
| Rate grantedby Reference Court
| 1
| Subhadrabai Dhondiram Rathod
| 571/2023
| 580/2014
| 211
| 1 H 14 R
| 690/- per Are
| 2000/- per Are
| 2
| Ankush Phula Rathod
| 572/2023
| 582/2014
| 210
| 1 H 53 R
| 690/- per Are
| 2000/-per Are
| 3
| Bhagwat Dattuba Sagare
| 1774/2023
| 578/2014
| 209
| 74 R
| 690/- per Are
| 2500/- per Are
| 4
| Uddhav Tulshiram Kakade
| 1775/2023
| 579/2014
| 209
| 61 R
| 690/- per Are
| 2500/- per Are
| 5
| Nila Chapla Rathod
| 3104/2023
| 581/2014
| 211
| 40 R
| 690/- per Are
| 2000/- per Are
|
9. I have gone through the Record and Proceeding. I find that there is no cogent material on record for treating the lands in First Appeal Nos.571 of 2023, 572 of 2023 and 3104 of 2023 as irrigated lands. There is no compatible material to treat the lands in First Appeal Nos.1774 of 2023 and 1775 of 2023 as fully irrigated land. Mere existence of a well in Survey No.209 is not sufficient to treat the lands as irrigated. The findings recorded by the Reference Court that above two lands are irrigated lands is incorrect.
10. It transpires from record that seven sale instances (Exhibits-16 to 22) are pressed into service. The sale instance at Exhibit-18 is of alienation of 11 R land on 01.06.1998 at the rate of Rs.4,272/- per Are. The land from village Talvat Borgaon, Taluka Georai, District Beed is involved in it. I am not inclined to accept the sale instance because the village is different, the rate is for small piece of land and there is no material on record to show the similarity. Another sale instance at Exhibit-21 is also of 18 R of land sold for the rate of Rs.2,777/- per Are. This is also not compatible with the probable rates.
11. The sale instance at Exhibit-22 dated 24.04.2005 for 77 R of land from Gat No.353 of village Pachegaon appears to be more suitable. Village Nipani Jawalka shares a boundary with Pachegaon. The land is dry land and the rate comes to Rs.2,922/- per Are. The sale instance is discarded by the Reference Court because the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case is treated to be of 13.01.2005. This mistake is apparent on the face of the record. The appellants are entitled to receive the rate at the rate of Rs.2922/- per Are for the dry land. The land is in close proximity with distance, time and area. Consequentially the rate for semi-irrigated land comes to Rs.4383/- per Are.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot and Ors vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2721 to support the proposition that highest rate shall be considered in fixing the rate. He further relied on Pehlad Ram vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 793 for claiming escalation but so far as the sale exemplar Exhibit-22 is concerned, there is no question of any escalation.
13. Further reliance is placed on Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) By L.Rs. And Ors vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5749 to buttress that if the claimant is entitled to more compensation than claimed that should be granted. This judgment will help the appellants because they claimed Rs.3000/- per Are and they are held to be entitled to enhancement.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has also prayed for rental compensation. It is pointed out that in the present case, the possession was taken on 20.12.2003. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.07.2005. The award was passed on 15.06.2007. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of Rajiv and Ors vs. The State of Punjab and Ors rendered by learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the interest of 6% was awarded over the enhanced compensation towards rental value.
15. The decision was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 16.04.2024, the Supreme Court enhanced the interest from 6% per annum to 9% per annum for first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of realization. Considering overall facts, I am of the considered view that instead of relegating the matter to any authority for ascertaining the rental compensation, it would be appropriate to grant 9% per annum on enhanced compensation from the date of handing over of possession till the notification.
16. It is vehemently argued by learned counsels for the acquiring bodies that the appellants failed to pay deficit court fees though they filed references on 18.01.2008. The deficit court fees of around Rs.4000/- was paid belatedly and thereafter, references were registered on 11.08.2014. It reveals from record that the references were lying with the Special Land Acquisition Officer from 18.01.2008 and the deficit court fees of Rs.4000/- was paid on 17.06.2011. This delay can be said to be attributable to the appellants but the delay from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014 is not attributable to them. They are entitled to receive the benefits for this period.
17. Learned counsels for the respondents pointed out that frequently the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector does not promptly refer the matter to the Reference Court. The applications linger without any action that causes delay in registration of the references. I find that the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector is under obligation to promptly refer the applications to the Reference Court. The objections regarding the deficit court fees should be brought to the notice of the claimants as early as possible. The claimants are liable for the lapses for not paying the deficit court fees and causing delay for the registration of the references. The public exchequer cannot be burdened for the lapses attributable to the claimants. When the lapses are due to the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector then the claimants cannot be deprived of legitimate benefits for the period.
18. In the present case, I hold that the lapses from 18.01.2008 till 17.06.2011 is attributable to the appellants for which they are not entitled to receive any statutory benefits. However, they shall be entitled to statutory benefits for the period from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014 as the lapses are attributable either to the Collector or the Reference Court. The appellants are entitled to receive benefits for this period.
19. For the reasons stated above, I pass following order:
ORDER
a. First Appeals are allowed partly.
b. The appellants in First Appeal Nos.571 of 2023, 573 of 2023 and 3104 of 2023 shall receive the rate of Rs.2,922/- per Are and the appellants in First Appeal Nos.1774 of 2023 and 1775 of 2023 shall receive the rate of Rs.4,383/- per Are.
c. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive the interest and statutory benefits for the delay caused in preferring their first appeals in the High Court.
d. The appellants shall not be entitled to the interest and statutory benefits from 18.01.2008 till 17.06.2011. However they are entitled to the statutory benefits and the interest from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014.
e. The appellants shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation towards the rental value.
f. The appellants shall be entitled to the interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per full Bench judgment of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.)141].
g. Save and except above modification, the impugned judgment and award shall stand unaltered.
h. The appellants shall pay the deficit court fees.
i. Award be drawn accordingly.
j. Record and Proceeding be sent back to the Reference Court.
|
| |
