Bombay High Court
Vasant S/O Laxmanrao Dalal vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 19 June, 2019
Author: M. G. Giratkar
Bench: M. G. Giratkar
fa 604.2012 judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 604 of 2012
Vasant S/o Laxmanrao Dalal,
Aged 70 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Bhaji Bazar, Amravati. ......... Appellant
.....Vs.....
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Amravati.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Upper Wardha Project
No.4, Collector Office, Amravati,
Tq. And District - Amravati.
3. The Deputy Director,
Town Planning, Amravati,
Municipal Corporation, Amravati,
Tq. and District - Amravati ......... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Deepali Sapkal h/f. Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.
DATED : 19/06/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is against the impugned judgment passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati in LAC No. 213 of 2003. The case of the ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 ::: fa 604.2012 judgment.odt 2 appellant in short is that the land Survey No. 38/2 admeasuring 1 Hectare 91 R Mauje Gambhirpur was acquired by Municipal Corporation, Amravati for treatment plant. The Land Acquisition Officer granted total compensation of Rs.28,27,442.63/-. The said award was challenged before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati in LAC No. 213 of 2003.
2. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati recorded its findings that value of acquired land is Rs.20,66,667/- per hectare and the total value of the land of 1 Hectare 91 R comes to Rs.39,47,333/-. The petitioner has received the amount of Rs.20,55,425/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.18,91,908/- alongwith all the statutory benefits under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. However, petitioner has restricted their claim to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/- and paid court fee on that amount and, therefore, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati partly allowed LAC No. 213 of 2003 and directed the respondents/acquiring body to pay Rs.11,00,000/- alongwith statutory benefit. Hence, the present appeal. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 :::
fa 604.2012 judgment.odt 3
3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Deepali Sapkal for the appellant. She has submitted that land owner need not to restrict his claim to a particular amount. It is for the court to decide the amount of compensation and if the amount of compensation is more than claimed, then, land owner can pay the deficit court fee even after passing the judgment.
4. Learned Advocate Ms. Sapkal has pointed out undertaking given before this Court and submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay the additional court fee of the enhanced amount.
5. Learned Advocate has submitted that Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.18,34,242/- but wrongly granted only Rs.11,00,000/-, only on the ground that court fee is paid only on Rs.11,00,000/-.
6. In support of her submission, she has pointed out judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (Dead) through Lrs. and and others Vs. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 ::: fa 604.2012 judgment.odt 4 State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 9 SCC 325. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on the earlier judgment in the case of Chandrashekhar and others Vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2009) 14 SCC 441.
7. Heard learned AGP Ms. Haider for respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the case of Chandrashekhar and others Vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2009) 14 SCC 441. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Once appellants were held entitled to enhanced compensation, they could not be denied the same on such technical grounds and opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of deficit court fee. Besides, the appellants had kept their claim alive and were agitating the matter for last ten years. Hence, compensation fixed at Rs 32.10 per sq ft (with solatium, additional compensation and interest based thereon) subject to deposit of requisite court fees."
8. In the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (cited supra) relying on the judgment of Chandrashekhar and others (Cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 :::
fa 604.2012 judgment.odt 5 "There is no obligation on landowner to specify amount of compensation in reference application and same may be specified in statement filed before Reference Court. Period of limitation is inapplicable for specifying amount of compensation claimed. Consequently, if reference is in regard to objection as to amount of compensation, Reference Court can permit amendment of amount claimed as compensation. What is impermissible after expiry of period of limitation specified in S. 18, is changing nature of objections from one category to another i.e. where reference is sought regarding amount of compensation, landowner cannot after period of limitation, seek amendment to change objection to objection as to measurement or objection as to apportionment. Further held, fact that landowner had sought increase only in regard to land, will not bar him from seeking increase even in regard to trees or structures. Reference Court has full power to determine compensation for land, buildings, trees and other appurtenances. Where such increase in compensation is claimed only for land, whether it includes increased compensation claim for trees or structures thereon."
9. In para 32, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 :::
fa 604.2012 judgment.odt 6 "We are conscious of the fact that the State of Maharashtra has a special provision in the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Schedule I Entry 15) which requires every claimant who makes an application to the Collector for a reference to court under Section 18 of the Act to pay one half the ad valorem fee on the difference between the amount awarded by the Collector and the amount claimed by the claimant. Thus the application under Section 18 objecting to the compensation by implication is required to disclose the amount of compensation sought and pay court fee on the increase sought. But this is only a requirement in regard to the Court Fees Act. This only means that if the claim is amended later, additional court fee may have to be paid. This requirement under the Court Fees Act cannot be read as a requirement under the Land Acquisition Act. So long as the Land Acquisition Act is not amended to require the person aggrieved to specify the amount of compensation claimed by him in the reference application, the bar of limitation will not apply even if the amount is specified in the application for reference and subsequently a higher amount is sought by way of amendment."
10. It is clear from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre and Chandrashekhar and others (Cited supra) that land owner need not to ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 ::: fa 604.2012 judgment.odt 7 specify the amount of compensation. Even the amount of compensation claimed is less than the actual compensation arrived then, Reference Court shall have full power to determine the compensation and deficit court fee can be recovered from the land owner.
11. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the findings of Reference Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati that though the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.18,91,908, but entitled for Rs.11,00,000/- only because he has paid court fee on Rs.11,00,000/- is illegal and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
12. In that view of the matter, appeal is allowed as prayed.
13. Impugned judgment/operative part in LAC No.213 of 2003 decided on 02.03.2012 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati is modified as under:
(i) Reference Petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondents shall pay enhanced
compensation of Rs.18,91,908/- alongwith accrued
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 :::
fa 604.2012 judgment.odt
8
interest and all statutory benefit.
(iii). Appellant is directed to pay deficit court fee on Rs.7,91,908/-.
(iv) Rest of the part of the impugned judgment is maintained as it is.
JUDGE SMGate ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 :::