LUTE NARAYANLAL BANSILAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment dated 31/12/1999 delivered by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Reference proceedings land acquisition case 13 of 1988 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act" for short), is assailed by both parties i.e., the landowners as also acquiring authority in these appeals under Section 54 thereof. Said reference arose out of award dated 16/7/1987 in L.A.C. 3/LAQ- 47/83/84 made by the Land Acquisition Officer for and on behalf State of Maharashtra. Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published on 19/2/1984. While admitting First Appeal No. 53/2001 filed by State, this Court on 12/2/2001 granted stay in terms of prayer clause (I) of Civil Application No.656/2001 on appellant- State depositing decreed amount with Trial Court within period of 8 weeks. That order continues to operate even today.

(2.) Civil Application (F) No. 2282/2011 is taken out by landowners pointing out death of appellant no.4 on 4th August 2011 and seeking leave to amend as per its schedule to bring his legal heir on record. State government is also asked to effect similar amendment in its First Appeal No. 53/2001, though no formal application is as yet moved by it. Shri J.J. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for said legal heir viz. Smt. Damyanti states that he is appearing for her in both the matters. State Government has without prejudice to its rights to verify the position, sought oral leave to substitute similarly. Accordingly, We permit respective Appellants to amend their respective memo of appeals forthwith.

(3.) Plot no. 1 Nazul Survey no. 14 of Amravati town formed subject matter of acquisition. The area as per last notification under Section 17 (1) dated 18/7/1985 is 54,168.86 Sq. Mtrs. and landowners claim it to be 60790 Sq. Mtrs. The award granted them compensation of Rs. 34,67,030/- towards land, structures, trees and statutory benefits. Trial Court or Reference Court found area acquired to be 59,870 Sq. Mtrs. as per report if Court Commissioner. By following hypothetical plotting method and using comparable sale instances, it arrived at rate of Rs. 19.50 per sq. ft. for belt-1 plots, Rs. 16.50 per sq. ft. for belt-2 plots and Rs. 13.70 per sq. ft. for belt-3 plots. Total amount for all three belts thus worked out by it was Rs. 74,06,128/-. It then followed judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (Hasanali Walimchand vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 AIR(SC) 700) to deduct 50% towards developments and found Rs. 37,03,064/- as value of acquired land. It also found them entitled to Rs. 17,57,521/- towards costs of structures on acquired land, Rs.22,120/-as value of barbed wire fencing and Rs. 2990/- as value of trees. Out of this Rs. 54,85,895/- as sum of Rs. 20,30,116/- was already received by landowners, it granted them balance amount of Rs. 34,55,779/-. The premises were being used by State for office of Divisional Commissioner, Amravati since 1/1/1981 and on 6/8/1985 possession was taken by it after invoking urgency clause. Trial Court therefore granted them compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act, from 1/1/1981 till 16/7/1987 i.e., date of award calculated at 12% P.A., on the market value (Rs.14,77,740/-) of big bungalow. Said sum given by it is Rs. 11,52,637/-. It granted them compensation at 12% PA under Section 23(1-A) on other property from 6/8/1985 till 16/7/1987 at Rs. 9,21,877/-. It thus awarded to them total sum of Rs. 75,60,409/-. It deducted from this total, a sum of Rs. 20,30,116/- already awarded by land acquisition officer and declared landowners entitled to receive Rs. 55,30,293/- more with 30% solatium on it under Section 23(2), interest on balance costs and solatium at 9% on it from 16/7/1987 to 15/7/1988 and at 15% thereafter as per Section 28/34 of the 1894 Act. Before us there is no dispute that direction to pay solatium on Section 23(1-A) grant is unsustainable.