STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHRIDHAR RAMCHANDRA MOKADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra and thereby, challenged the judgment dated 1st June, 1988, passed by Civil Judge, S. D. Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 80 of 1986, which arose out of the Land Acqusition case No. l9/laq-47/79/80 of village Pilapur, district Wardha.

(2.) THE respondent herein, original applicant, under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act (for short Act) prayed for enchacement of compensation, by its application dated 20th February, 1984. After considering the material and evidence on the record, by the impunged judgment, the said application was allowed and the applicant herein, State of Maharashtra, directed to pay-additional compensation of Rs. 61, 616/- and solatium of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from 7th August, 1980, till realisation.

(3.) THE learned Advocate Mr. Mirza, a. G. P. appearing for the appellant basically submitted that such reference application itself was not maintainable as amount of compensation was not accepted under protest as contemplated under section 18 of the Act. Therefore, for want of such protest, there was no question of additional compensation as awarded. He further contended that the learned judge was wrong in shifting the burden on the state of Maharashtra, appellant, to disprove the contention of the apellant that respondent had accepted the compensation under protest. The another argument and submission was that in view of AIR 1986 SC page 106, the respondents were not entitled for separte amount for the orange tress at above rate and or such enhancement. The respondent had already received a compensation for the irrigated land in question. Therefore, there was no question of awarding additional compensation separately for the orange trees. In view of this the impunged order is incorrect. The learned advocate for the appellant has relied on 2003 S. C. C. 128 (Shardadevi Vs. State of Bihar) also.