SAMBHA PURSHOTTAM PALIKONDAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-68
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on August 03,2017

Sambha Purshottam Palikondawar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.K. DESHPANDE, J. - (1.) The land belonging to the petitioners was acquired under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, "MRTP Act") by the respondent-Municipal Council, Pusad. Though the possession was taken on 22.1.1994, 1.8.1996 and 29.10.1996, the amount of compensation was not paid. It was offered on 6.2.2004 after this Court passed an order on 20th February 2004. It is informed that the petitioners have received the amount of compensation. In view of the order dated 20th th February, 2004 passed by this Court, the only question remained to be considered was the validity of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 129 of the MRTP Act.
(2.) The provisions of Section 129(2) being relevant, is reproduced below : " 129 (2) : Where possession of land is taken under sub-section (1), the Planning Authority, the Development Authority or as the case may be, appropriate Authority, shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), pay to the owner concerned interest at 4 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of taking possession of the land under acquisition to the date of payment." As per the aforesaid provision, the land owner is entitled to get interest @ 4% per annum, on the amount of compensation from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of the payment. Shri Samarth, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act the rate of interest payable is of 9% and 15%. He, therefore, submits that the provisions of sub-clause (2) of Section 129 of the MRTP Act to the extent it deprives the petitioner right to get interest in terms of the similar provision under the Land Acquisition Act is unconstitutional.
(3.) It is well settled that the validity of the provisions of the Act cannot be challenged in comparison with similar provision in any other enactment. In our view, though the Land Acquisition Act prescribes 12% rate of interest under sub-Section (1-A) of Section 23 from the date of possession or award, as the case may be, till the actual payment, the question of sub-section (2) of Section 129 of MRTP Act becoming unconstitutional, does not at all arise. We, therefore, reject the said plea raised in this petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.