Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 56 (BOM)

Mahavir Suganchand Ghopda v. State of Maharashtra

2022-01-05

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI

body2022
JUDGMENT Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - In an appeal filed by the Acquiring Body under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the claimant in LAC No. 99/2010 (hereinafter to as the Cross-objector) has filed this cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C.') claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare with all other statutory benefits. 2. Heard Shri Purushottam Patil, learned counsel for the Appellants and Shri A.B. Nakshane, learned counsel for the Cross-objector. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The Cross-objector is the owner of the land under Gat No. 65/1 admeasuring 1.21 hectare situated at village Thalegaon, Tq. & Dist. Yavat-mal. The said land was acquired by the Appellants/Acquiring Body for Bembla River Project. The notification under Section 4 was published on 14.08.2003 and the award was declared on 09.06.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 91,578/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the Cross-objector filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The Reference Court after considering the evidence on record, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,75,000/-. The Appellants/Acquiring Body challenged the said judgment by filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereas the Cross-objector filed cross-objection claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare. The appeal filed by the Acquiring Body has been withdrawn. The only question for consideration is whether the Cross-objector is entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare. 5. Learned counsel for the Cross-objector has placed on record copy of the judgment dated 1st September, 2021 in First Appeal No. 481/2016 and other group matters, whereunder this Court, (Coram: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.), has determined the compensation in respect of the land under Gat No. 30/02 at village Thalegaon at the rate of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare. Learned counsel for the Cross-objector states that the land which is the subject-matter of the First Appeal No. 481/2016 was of similar nature, situated in the same village and was acquired for the same purpose, by the same notification. On the basis of the said judgment, he submits that the Cross-objector is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare. 6. On the basis of the said judgment, he submits that the Cross-objector is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare. 6. Shri Purushottam Patil, learned counsel for the Appellants/Acquiring Body submits that the cross-objection is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without filing an application for condonation of delay. He further submits that the Cross-objector is not entitled for interest during the delayed period. 7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. At the outset, it may be mentioned that Order XLI rule 22 of C.P.C. permits filing of cross-objection within a period of one month from the date of service of notice. The said Rule 22 also gives discretion to the Court to permit filing of cross-objection beyond the period of 30 days. In the case of V.I.D.C. Vs. Kawadu Narayan Tandulkar & Ors. reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 780 , learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the period of one month contemplated under Order XLI Rule 22(1) of the C.P.C. must be calculated from the date of service of the notice upon the Cross-objector of final hearing of the appeal. Pursuant to the referral order of the learned Single Judge, in the case of Vasant Builders & Anr. Vs. Mohan Narayan Patwardhan in Writ Petition No. 5099/2018 on 22nd December, 2020, the Division Bench of this Court has held that V.I.D.C. (supra) does not lay down the correct position of law. It is held that the limitation for filing of the cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the C.P.C. commences/starts/triggers from the date on which the Respondent or his pleader has been served with the notice or the date fixed for hearing or the date when the Respondent has entered his appearance at any stage remedy or on caveat, whichever is earlier and not on the date when he receives any notice about the paper-book being ready. 9. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the Cross-objector had put in his appearance on 13.06.2018 on which date the appeal was admitted. The cross-objection was filed on 26.09.2018. The Acquiring Body did not raise any objection and this Court vide order dated 19.11.2018 admitted the cross-objection. 9. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the Cross-objector had put in his appearance on 13.06.2018 on which date the appeal was admitted. The cross-objection was filed on 26.09.2018. The Acquiring Body did not raise any objection and this Court vide order dated 19.11.2018 admitted the cross-objection. It is to be noted that on the date of filing of the cross-objection, the judgment in V.I.D.C. (supra) was in force and the Cross- objector had filed the cross-objection within the period of limitation, as laid down in the said judgment. Suffice it to say that, the subsequent decision which affects accrued rights, remedies or procedure cannot be given retrospective effect. As it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahadev Govind Gharge & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka reported in (2011) 8 SCR 829 , the procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve the ends of justice and not to shut the doors of justice for the parties at the threshold. It is held that unnecessary and avoidable technical impediments need not be introduced by virtue of interpretative process. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the objections raised by the Acquiring Body regarding the maintainability of the cross-objection cannot be sustained. 10. Now coming to the merits of the case, a perusal of the judgment dated 1st September, 2021 in First Appeal No. 481/2016 reveals that this Court, (Coram: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.), has determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare in respect of the land of similar nature surveyed under Gat No. 30/02 situated in the same village, which was acquired for the same purpose. The case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 1st September, 2021 in First Appeal No. 481/2016. Hence, the Cross-objector is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare in respect of land admeasuring 1.21 hectare, Gat No. 65/1 situated at village Thalegaon, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. 11. Learned counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Selu Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2020 (4) Mh.L.J. 45 , to contend that the Cross-objector is not entitled for interest from the date of the award. & Dist. Yavatmal. 11. Learned counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Selu Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2020 (4) Mh.L.J. 45 , to contend that the Cross-objector is not entitled for interest from the date of the award. In the said case, the claimant had filed an appeal under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Act with an application to condone the delay of five years in filing the appeal. The High Court had allowed the application for condonation of delay and had subsequently allowed the appeals and enhanced the amount of compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that no fault found with the order of the High Court in condoning the delay, but has held that the High Court was not justified in saddling the public body with liability to pay the interest for the period of three years, which was not at all attributed to them. 12. In the instant case, the Cross-objector had not filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act with an application for condonation of delay. In an appeal filed by the Acquiring Body, the Cross-objector has filed cross-objection. Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C. gives right to the Respondent to challenge the finding against him in respect of any issue and also to take cross-objection to the decree, which he could have taken by way of appeal. Rule 22 thus gives two distinct rights to the respondent in an appeal. The first is the right of upholding the decree of the Court of the first instance on any of the grounds on which that Court has decided against him, and the second right is to challenge the finding on any issue or to take any cross-objection to the decree, which he might have taken by way of appeal. Order XLI Rule 22 does not provide for any adverse consequences and in the absence of specific provision, the Cross-objector, who has exercised his right under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., cannot be deprived of the interest from the date of the judgment and award till the date of filing of the cross-objection. 13. Under the circumstances and in view of the discussions (supra), the Cross-objection is partly allowed. The Cross-objector is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 13. Under the circumstances and in view of the discussions (supra), the Cross-objection is partly allowed. The Cross-objector is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare with all other statutory benefits. Civil Application (CAF) No. 2251/2015 In view of the withdrawal of the first appeal, civil application does not survive. Hence, disposed of.