STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SAKHARAM GOVIND SHIRSATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants claim to be the owners of the agricultural lands falling in revenue estate of village Kavanai, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. Their lands were acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 25th May 1994 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated 20th October 1995 awarded compensation to the claimants by categorising the lands into 5 categories and awarded compensation at different rate of Rs 35,000 to Rs.65,000. References under section 18 of the Act were preferred by the claimant which were referred by the Collector to the court of competent jurisdiction. The 5th Additional District Judge Nasik vide his judgment dated 31st August 2004 granted additional compensation to the claimants while categorising the lands into 3 categories, at the rate of Rs 1.20,000, 1,30,000 and 1,50,000 per hectare depending upon the revenue to which the lands were assessed. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Reference Court filed first appeals in this court. As the claimants were also dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation for compulsory acquisition of their lands. During the pendency of the appeals, some of them filed Cross Objections. Cross Objection No. 13417 of 1007 in First Appeal No. 817 of 2005 and Cross Objection No 13721 of 2007 in First Appeal No. 940 of 2005 arise out of judgment of the reference court in LAR No.384 of 1997 and 528 of l997 respectively. These two Cross objections which were listed for hearing alongwith the appeals preferred by the State, were barred by time. Vide judgment of even date, the State appeals have been dismissed, while the Cross objections filed by the claimants therein have been accepted and delay in filing the Cross objections was also condoned.

(2.) The judgment in those appeals was reserved on 20th June 2007. All the above Cross objections were filed after the period of limitation for filing of Cross objections had been lapsed. Some of the Cross objections were filed during the pendency of the appeals while others were filed when the appeals were being heard and even after the appeals were reserved for judgment. In the judgment in First Appeal No. 896 of 2005 and 940 of 2005, after a detailed discussion the court granted the following reliefs:

(3.) All the above referred Cross objections filed in the present appeals are also barred by time but for the reasons stated in the above judgment, we are inclined to condone the delay even in these Cross objections. Primarily the reason given by the claimants is inadequacy of finance. According to them they had been deprived by compulsory acquisition of their agricultural land which was the main source of their livelihood and they had not been paid compensation for considerable time. There is no doubt that the land was acquired in the year 1994 whereafter compensation determined by the Collector, even according to the respondents, was paid in the year 1995 and the enhanced compensation has not been received by the claimants, as pointed out during the course of hearing, till date. Considering these facts the Bench dealing with those appeals held as under: