MADAN VISHWANATH NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landowner has claimed interest @ 9% on the amount of bonds given to him on 26-11-1987, from the date on which possession of surplus land under the Maharashtra agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holding) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) , was taken from him, till the date on which the bonds were issued. He has also claimed compensation of 3 Jambul trees, one pal (Embankment) and one Well. It is also stated that the petitioners are also entitled to interest on account of delay in delivering of bonds

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute can be briefly stated as under : the surplus land from the holding of the petitioner was determined on 26-12-1970 and it is the contention of the petitioner that surplus land vested in government on 21-1-1971. It is further stated that proceeding for computing the amount of compensation in relation to these surplus lands were over and on 26-11 -1987 the petitioner was given bonds as contemplated under section 26 of the Act. The petitioner therefore, claims interest @ 9% on the amount of bonds from 21-1-1971 till 26-11-1987. Attention of the court is also invited to the record of rights in the year 1971-72, 1972-73 to state that there were Jambul trees, embankment and Well in the said surplus land and no compensation has been paid to the petitioner about it. As the possession was taken in 1971 and the bonds were delivered in 1987 interest for this delay is also sought for The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. R. R deshpande, has relied upon unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 640/1988, decided on 14-10-1991, in support He points out that this Court has drawn support from the provisions of the Land Acquisition act and the judgment reported at 1985 mh. LJ. 636 (Madhav Gopalrao Ganap Vs. State of Maharashtra).

(3.) Learned AGP appearing for respondents had today filed return. He has argued that the petitioner is trying to gain double advantage, in as much as the interest sought is for delay in delivering of bonds. He states that had the bonds been delivered in time or at the time of taking possession, the petitioner could not have claimed any interest. He therefore, contends that the only prayer for grant of interest on account of delay in delivering the bonds needs to be considered in this Writ Petition. He invites attention to the fact that the proceedings for determination of compensation were opened in 1985 and within two years the amount of compensation was paid in the shape of bonds to the petitioner. He further states that, possession was not taken on 21-1-1971, but the possession has been taken in the year 1973 He further invites attention to the findings reached by the Subdivisional officer, that on 3-11-1985 when spot inspection was done there were no Jambul trees or Embankment or Well in the surplus land. He therefore contends that the prayer for compensation under these three heads is misconceived He points out that embankment found was not fit for awarding any compensation and the well also was dilapidated. He invites attention of the court to the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, to contend that interest @ 9% p. a. , on the amount of bond cannot be awarded.