LexKAZI AKILODDIN SUJAODDIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 7 S.C.R. 382 KAZI AKILODDIN. SUJAODDIN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5084 of 2013) JULY 03, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION: Rental compensation for pre-acquisition period - Entitlement to as per award of Land Acquisition Officer or on the amount as enhanced by reference court - HELD: During the pendency of a reference proceeding or appeal before a o higher court, rental compensation is to be determined on the basis of award passed by Land Acquisition Officer - Subsequently, if there is upward revision of amount, consequences will follow and re-determination of the rental compensation can be made. E The respondent-State took possession of the land of the appellant on 15.11.1998 for construction of flood protection wall for the city of Akola. Notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 3.06.1999 followed by Notification u/s. 6 of the Act F published on 18.11.1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 04.08.2000 determined the compensation. The State Government paid to the appellant rental compensation for pre-acquisition period on the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition G Officer, whereas the reference court allowed the rental compensation to be paid on the award value as enhanced by it in the reference case. Since the rental compensation as directed by the reference court was not H 382 KAZI AKILODDIN SUJAODDIN v. STATE OF 383 MAHARASHTRA paid, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High A Court which was allowed on 5.10.2010. However, on the review petition filed by the respondents, the High Court directed the State Government to deposit rental compensation at the rate of 8% of the amount as awarded by the reference court and allowed the B appellant to withdraw half of the amount so deposited. In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: Whether ·the High Court was justified in directing the State to deposit the rental C compensation with the appellate court at the rate of 8% per annum on the award value passed by the reference · ·court for the period of occupation before formal acquisition, and in allowing the appellant to withdraw only 50% of such rental compensation during the pendency of the appeal. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not contemplate the payment of any rental compensation. E The entitlement of rental compensation is on the basis of resolutions and instructions issued by the State of Maharashtra from time to time. From the decision of this Court, Maimuma Banu* it is clear that during the pendency of a reference proceeding or appeal before a higher court the rental compensation is to be determined F on the basis of award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Subsequently, if there is upward revision of amount, consequences will follow and, if necessary, re- determination of the rental compensation can be made and after adjustment of the amount paid, if any, balance G can be paid. [Para 3 and 18] [385-E-F; 392-E-F] *State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Maimuma Banu and Others, 2003 Supp. 2 SCR 228 = (2003) (7) sec 448 - relied on. H 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A 1.3 In the instant case, bott. the State Government and the appellant are not satisfied with the award passed by the reference court and, therefore, two appeals against the said award by both parties are pending before the High Court for determination. Giving reference B · to the decision in Maimuma Banu, it was not open to the High Court to direct the authorities to pay rental compensation as per•award passed by the reference court. Therefore, the order of the High Court recalling the order dated 5.10.2010 and directing the State Government c to deposit with the appellate court rental cdmpensation at the rate of 8% of the amount awarded by the reference court, allowing the appellant to withdraw the half of the amount, calls for no interference. [Para 19] (392-F-H; 393- A-B] D E Case Law Reference: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 relied on Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5084 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in M.C.A. No. 774 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3883 of 2010. F Manish Pitale, Sunil Kumar, Chander Shekhar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.