1 973...odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2026 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION 1 AURANGABAD AND ORS VERSUS RAMRAO MAROTI GAIKWAD ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Sarita Vivek Gaikwad Advocate for Respondent : Mr. R.V. Gunale h/f. Mr. Gunale Vishwambar Digamberrao … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This Appeal is filed by the acquiring body challenging the impugned judgment and award to the extent of interest under Section 28 of on the enhanced compensation from the date of delivery of possession by the judgment and award dated 18.03.2023, passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in LAR no. 163/2017. 2. Learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that the land of the Respondent situated at Village Reolgaon, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad, in Gat no. 98 admeasuring 35 R was acquired for the purpose of construction of Neopur Medium Project. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15/21 June, 1996. 2026:BHC-AUG:38408 2 973...odt 3. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Claimants filed the reference Petition in the year 2017. The Reference Court decided the reference vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2023, in LAR no. 163/2017. In the said reference, the Reference Court has awarded interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of delivery of possession as per award at Exhibit 25 for the period of first one year and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum for subsequent years till its realization as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Similarly, challenge is also raised to the interest on the original compensation amount awarded by the Competent Authority as per Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act ( for short ‘the Act’). 4. According to the learned Advocate, clause nos. 5 and 6 of the judgment of the Reference Court dated 18.03.2023 are contrary to the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Versus Kailash Shiva Rangari, AIR 2016 Bombay 141. This judgment laus down that if the possession of the land is taken under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the interest under Section 34 would be payable from the date of possession and not from date of the award. However, if possession is taken prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the 3 973...odt Act, there is no question of invoking the urgency clauses under Section 17, and the interest under Section 34 shall start running from the date of passing of the award. Similarly, observations have been made that for the purpose of calculating the amount of the additional component under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, at the rate of 12% per annum, the starting point is the date of award or date publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, and the terminal point is the date of taking possession, whichever is relevant. Thus taking into consideration and eventualities, the Claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the said Act, from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act. 5. It is, therefore, held that if the possession is taken before notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and / or before the award is passed, the land owner would be entitled for interest as per Section 34 of the Act, necessarily from the date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the said Act. 6. It is, therefore, contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellant that in view of the decision in case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra), the order passed by the Reference Court needs to be modified. The learned Advocate further relies on the judgment of this Court where 4 973...odt similar situation has arisen and the First Appeal no. 5135/2017, filed by the State of Maharashtra, was allowed only to the extent of interest awarded by the Reference Court by modifying the award as per the reference in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the Claimant also does not dispute the said position and would submit that on disposal of the present Appeal, the Claimant may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the acquiring body. 8. Hence, in view of the aforementioned legal position as it emerges from the Full Bench decision in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra), the Land Acquisition Reference no. 163/2017 is modified and it is directed to be calculated that so far as interest in the present matter is concerned, is directed from the date of award instead of date of taking the possession, to bring the order under reference in tune with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, clause numbers 5 and 6 of the reference are modified. Accordingly, the interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act shall be payable from the date of the award, and not from the date of possession as erroneously observed by the Reference Court. 5 973...odt 9. As a result of the aforementioned directions, the Appeal is partly allowed only to the extent of interest payable to the Claimants. Rest of the judgment passed by the Reference Court shall remain as it is. 10. The Respondent / Claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount along with the interest accrued thereon, which is deposited in this Court. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC