Back
Directs Compensation for Loss of Milk Business from Acquired Land
In a significant ruling, the has held that loss of milk business carried on from a stable on acquired land qualifies for compensation, interpreting the definition of "land" under the , to include benefits arising out of it. Justice Abhay Ahuja, hearing First Appeal No. 20 of 2012, modified the award of the District Judge, Thane, and directed the state to compensate Kashinath Dudhaji Gaikwad for the loss of his milk business, which he was forced to shut down due to the acquisition.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Kashinath Dudhaji Gaikwad, owned land in Survey No.71, Hissa No.2(B) at Village Lonad, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane. The land was acquired by the state under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on , with a Section 6 notification on . The award was made on , and possession was taken on . Dissatisfied with the compensation, Gaikwad sought a for enhancement.
During the reference proceedings, he filed an application to amend his claim to include compensation for loss of milk business, stating that he had been running a dairy operation from a stable on the land. The District Judge initially allowed the amendment in but ultimately rejected the claim for loss of milk business in the final award dated , granting compensation only for the house. Aggrieved, Gaikwad appealed to the High Court.
Arguments and Evidence
, counsel for the appellant, argued that Gaikwad had produced substantial evidence of his milk business, including an account book with entries of customers, milk quantities, and expenses for fodder and labor. The appellant also purchased buffaloes and paid workers. His remained unchallenged during . The counsel submitted that the District Judge erred in rejecting the claim by taking a , especially since the amendment order was never challenged by the state.
, the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, contended that there was no evidence linking the accounts to the milk business or demonstrating that the loss was directly due to the acquisition. He argued that the appeal was based on no evidence.
Legal Analysis and Precedent
The High Court relied heavily on the 's decision in Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 9 SCC 325. The apex court held that once a landowner seeks a reference objecting to the amount of compensation, the entire issue of compensation is open before the . The landowner is not required to specify the quantum initially and can amend the claim later, as long as the nature of the objection—such as —remains unchanged.
Justice Ahuja noted that the appellant had not changed the nature of his objection; he had always sought enhanced compensation. The District Judge's reasoning that there was no evidence of milk business before the Section 4 notification was flawed. The court observed that the (Exhibit 27) clearly showed a cattle shed with measurements, and the appellant had made representations to the Land Acquisition Officer as early as about the stable and house.
Key Observations
The court made several critical observations, stating:
"The learned District Judge ought to have appreciated that under Section 3(a) of the Act, land includes the . There was a stable in which the Appellant was carrying out milk business which he had to stop on account of acquisition of land."
"The evidence produced by the Appellant was completely brushed aside by the learned District Judge by such hyper technical approach."
"A land owner, who has lost his land, should not get the of the land and should be restricted by technicalities to some provisional amount he had indicated while seeking a reference."
Final Decision and Implications
The High Court modified the and award, directing the respondents to compensate Gaikwad for loss of milk business as per the calculation submitted in his amendment application (Exhibit 15). The calculation covered 150 months from to , totaling ₹6,54,690 including and . The was ordered to determine the enhanced amount within three months, and the state must deposit the compensation within three months thereafter, less any amount already paid.
This ruling clarifies that the definition of "land" under Section 3(a) is broad enough to encompass commercial activities like dairy farming conducted on the acquired property. It also reinforces the principle that landowners should not be penalized for technical omissions in their initial reference applications when seeking full and fair compensation for all losses arising from .
