Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2396 (BOM)

Anusaya Kanbarao Manikwad v. State of Maharashtra

2022-11-16

ABHAY AHUJA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the "said Act") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the Judgment and order dated 22/11/2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal in LAC No.372/2002. 4. There is delay of 4407 days in filing this appeal which is also sought to be condoned by a civil application made in this behalf. 5. Shri Patre, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that land admeasuring an area of 0.81 HR of Survey No.19 situated at Village Kurali, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal owned by the appellant was acquired for the purpose of submergence of area under Amdapur Project. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21/08/1997 and the award under Section 11 of the said Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27/11/2000, whereby the appellant was granted compensation of Rs.20,000/- per hectare. Thereafter, notice dated 06/02/2001 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to the appellant. In furtherance of the said notice, the appellant accepted the compensation under protest. However, dissatisfied with the said compensation, the appellant filed a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act on 15/03/2001, whereby she claimed an additional compensation of Rs.2,78,394/- in addition to other statutory benefits. By Judgment and award dated 22/11/2007, the Reference Court partly allowed the claim of the appellant awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 6. Learned counsel would submit that for acquisition under the same project in the same village under the same notification dated 21/08/1997 and the award of the same date viz. 27/11/2000, this Court by order dated 20/01/2020 in First Appeal No. 1412/2019 has directed the respondent - Acquiring Body to pay compensation @ Rs.83,000/- per hectare. 7. Learned counsel would submit that in view of settled law that similarly situated land owners should receive parity, this appeal also needs to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be granted compensation @ Rs.83,000/- per hectare. 8. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Acquiring Body has not disputed the factual aspects in this matter. 7. Learned counsel would submit that in view of settled law that similarly situated land owners should receive parity, this appeal also needs to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be granted compensation @ Rs.83,000/- per hectare. 8. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Acquiring Body has not disputed the factual aspects in this matter. Shri Kadu confirms that the decision of this Court dated 20/01/2020 in First Appeal No.1412/2019 has not been challenged and has attained finality and this Court may accordingly pass orders. However, in view of the delay of 4407 days in filing this appeal, he raises a formal objection. But submits that in the event this Court is inclined to condone the delay, no interest be awarded for the period of delay. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, I have perused the papers, proceedings and the decision relied upon by them. 10. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to preface the discussion with the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander (Deceased) through his legal representatives and others Vrs. Union of India and another (2020) 15 SCC 491 has observed that if the similarly situated land owner has received higher compensation then the benefits of such higher compensation should be allowed to the appellants provided that there is no interest payable for the delayed period to him. Paragraphs Nos.3 and 4 are usefully quoted as under :- "3. If a similarly situated landowner i.e. in Rameshwar Solanki v. Union of India has received higher compensation, which fact the High Court had noted, the High Court should have allowed the benefit of such higher compensation to the appellants, if required, by making it clear that for the period of delay no interest shall be payable to the appellant landowners. The above course of action has, in fact, been adopted by this Court in several other cases where compensation on a par has been awarded minus interest for the period of delay in approaching the Court. 4. In the present case, we are inclined to follow the said course of action. The above course of action has, in fact, been adopted by this Court in several other cases where compensation on a par has been awarded minus interest for the period of delay in approaching the Court. 4. In the present case, we are inclined to follow the said course of action. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court, condone the delay that has occurred in instituting the appeal before the High Court and award compensation to the appellant landowners at the same rate that has been awarded in Rameshwar Solanki v. Union of India along with all statutory benefits. We make it clear that no interest shall be payable to the appellant landowners for the period of 6593 days' delay that has occurred in the present case in approaching the High Court.'' (emphasis supplied) 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D. Eswara Naidu and others V/s Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (2019) 13 SCC 785 has laid emphasis on the principle of parity when in Paragraph No.5, the Apex Court observes that similarly situated persons covered by the very same notification may not be discriminated on the ground of delay. Paragraph No.5 of the said decision is pertinent and is quoted as under : "5. Needless to say that in case similarly situated persons covered by the very same notification have been granted compensation @ Rs.4000 per lemon tree, the petitioners herein may not be discriminated on the ground of delay. However, in the event of grant of enhancement, they shall not be entitled for interest for the period of delay.'' (emphasis supplied) 13. It is not in dispute that Appellant's land admeasuring 0.81 hectares in Survey No.19 situated at Village Kurali, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal was acquired for Amdapur project by respondent No.2 pursuant to notification dated 21/08/1997 under Section 4(1) of the said Act. It is also not in dispute that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed on 27/11/2000. From the Judgment dated 20/01/2020 in First Appeal No.1412/2019 referred to by the counsel for the claimants, it is quite clear that the said Judgment also refers to the same Amdapur project for which land subject matter of this appeal has been acquired. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act in the present case is also of 21/08/1997. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act in the present case is also of 21/08/1997. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is also of 27/11/2000. The learned AGP has not raised any dispute as to the type or quality of land acquired in both the cases. As such, the facts of this case and the facts in First Appeal No.1412/2019 (supra) are similar and the appellants in both these cases appear to be similarly placed. 14. In view of the above discussion, it emerges that the appellant herein would also be entitled to a compensation @ of Rs.83,000/- per hectare. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the civil application for condonation of delay, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances and law cited above, there is sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay of 4407 days. The delay of 4407 days is hereby condoned. 16. The civil application stands allowed. 17. In view of the above well settled principles, the impugned order of the Reference Court is hereby modified and the respondents are directed to pay compensation to the appellant @ Rs.83,000/- per hectare for the land acquired under the subject notification by depositing the amount of compensation in respect of 0.81 HR calculated as above in the savings bank account of the appellant within a period of six months subject to (i) waiver of interest for the delayed period of 4407 days and (ii) due verification by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 18. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.