STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VISHWANATHRAO PARSHURAM MAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the state Government against the award passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sangli dated 2nd January, 1980, in the Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1976. It is an admitted position that at the instance of the Municipal Council, Tasgaon the land belonging to respondent Vishwanathrao Parshuram Mali bearing C.T.S. No. 1588 was acquired for the purpose of a vegetable market. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14th of May, 1972. The respondent-claimant had protested against the acquisition itself. However, his objection was over-ruled. Ultimately land came to be acquired and the Land Acquisition officer by his Award dated 17-2-1975 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 17-50 per square metre. Being aggrieved by this Award the claimant sought a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Civil Court by the impugned award determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. meter and granted an additional compensation of Rs. 24, 728-60P. together with the solatium and interest at the rate of Rs. 5/- per cent per annum from the date of the order to the date of recovery of the amount . As already observed, being aggrieved by this Award of the Civil Court the present appeal is filed by the State Government.

(2.) Shri Kotwal, learned Government Pleader contended before us that the Civil Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent claimant had ommitted to make a claim in pursuance to the notice given under section 9 of the Act for sufficient reasons. According to Shri Kotwal, since the claimant had either refused or omitted, without sufficient cause to make the claim, he was not entitled to any enhanced or additional compensation in view of the provisions of section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of this contention Shri Kotwal has placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in (State of Maharashtra v. Shantabai) 1979 Mh.L.J. p. 673, (Govardhan v. State of Bihar) A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1246 and (State of Kerala v. Kachippan) A.I.R 1981 Kerala 136. Shir Kotwal has also contended that the enhanced compensation granted by the Civil Court is not based on any material or evidence on record and has been determined arbitrarily. The learned trial Judge has practically doubled the compensation without any material or evidence in support of it. He then contented that in any case the learned trial Judge committed an error in granting interest at the rate of Rs. 5/- per cent per annum which is obviously contrary to the provisions of section 28 of the land Acquisition Act.

(3.) On the other hand Shir Page, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent claimant, contended before us that the learned trial Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the claimant omitted to make a claim after the receipt of the notice under section 9 of the Act for sufficient reasons. He also contended that since the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court judiciously, this is not a fit case, where this Court should interfere with the said discretion in an appeal. In support of this contention Shir page has placed reliance upon the very decision of the Kerala High Court, viz. State of Kerala v. Kachippan, A.I.R. 1981 Kerala 136 as well as the decision of Karnataka High Court in A.I.R. 1974 Karnataka p. 74 (Sic). So far as the merits of the claim are concerned, it is concerned, by Shir Page that after taking into consideration the relevant sale transaction, the learned trial Judge has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. metre, which is also on the lower side. Therefore, according to Shir Page, the compensation granted by the Civil Court is perfectly legal and valid and no interference is called for with the said Award in this First Appeal.