Back
2009(2) Supreme 809
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP) No. 9782 of 2005)
Decided on : 04-03-2009
AIR 1958 SC 61; (1972) 1 SCC 249; (1979) 2 SCC 297; (1994) 6 SCC 29; (2000) 2 SCC 185; (1989) 2 SCC 95 – Relied upon.
(b) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – When High Court drawn erroneous inferences, Supreme Court can reappreciate the evidence to prevent further delay instead of remanding the matter.
(1975) 2 SCC 326 – Relied upon.
(c) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Principles for exercising power under Article 136 stated.(Para 22)
(d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – Well-established that the burden of proving the true market value of acquired property is on the State that has acquired it for a particular purpose. (Para 27)
(e) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Impugned judgment being backed only by assertions and overlooking evidence, cannot be sustained. (Para 30)
(1990) 3 SCC 374; AIR 1989 SC 1222; AIR 1985 SC 1576 – Relied upon.
(f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 51A – Use of the term “may” shows that there is discretion with the court to the extent of reliance to be placed on a sale deed. (Para 31)
(2004) 8 SCC 270 – Relied upon.
(g) Burden of proof – Burden of proof in civil cases is that of “balance of probability” and not that of “beyond reasonable doubt” – Thus minor inconsistencies in evidence are not relevant in civil cases in considering the question of discharge of this burden. (Para 32)
(1999) 8 SCC 649 – Relied upon.
(h) Judicial Review – The High Court sought “consistence in the evidence forsaking the sense the evidence conveyed and the effect it produced” – Such approach is unsustainable. (Para 36)
AIR 1993 SC 1126 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. The property belonging to the appellant was sought to be acquired by the State Respondent for the Ruibhor Medium Project.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of compensation under section 11 of the Act, granting an amount of Rs.40,226/- as compensation to the appellant, the said amount being inclusive of statutory benefits under Section 23 of the Act.
3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him, the appellant filed a Reference case. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, on hearing the parties, held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inappropriate and, therefore, increased the same to Rs.83,000/-, in addition to Rs.5,000/- towards the loss and damages incurred by the appellant. He also awarded other statutory benefits under Section 23 of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by this order the State Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court had set aside the order of the Reference Court and reduced the compensation in respect of the acquired property from Rs.83,000/- to Rs.40,226/- as granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Finding of the Court :
High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings of the Reference Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the judgment and order dated 6th of December, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.875 of 2003 reversing the order dated 27th of April, 1994 of the Reference Court, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) whereby the High Court had reduced the quantum of compensation, as enhanced by the Reference Court from Rs.83,000/- to Rs.40,226/-.
3. The relevant facts as arising from the case made out by the parties, leading to filing of this appeal, and which will help us in understanding the controversy involved, can be summarized as follows.
The property in acquisition belonged to the appellant, bearing House No. 100/5 at village Deolali, Tal. & District Osmanabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘acquired property’). The same was sought to be acquired by the State Respondent for the Ruibhor Medium Project. On 10th of September, 1985, the State Respondent issued a notification under section 4 of the Act regarding the need of the acquired property for purposes mentioned in the notification. This notification was published on 16th of October, 1985. On 17th of March, 1986, the State Respondent issued a notification under section 6 of the Act regarding the need of the acquired property for purposes mentioned therein. Thereafter, on 30th of March, 1988, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of compensation under section 11 of the Act, granting an amount of Rs.40,226/- as compensation to the appellant, the said amount being inclusive of statutory benefits under Section 23 of the Act.
4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him, the appellant in 1991 filed a Reference case under section 18 of the Act. On 27th of April, 1994, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, on hearing the parties, held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inappropriate and, therefore, increased the same to Rs.83,000/-, in addition to Rs.5,000/- towards the loss and damages incurred by the appellant. He also awarded other statutory benefits under Section 23 of the Act. Being aggrieved by this order of the Reference Court, the State Respondent filed an appeal before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay in December 1996. By the impugned Judgment dated 6th of December, 2004, the High Court had set aside the order of the Reference Court and reduced the compensation in respect of the acquired property from Rs.83,000/- to Rs.40,226/- as granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. For the purposes of deciding this appeal, it is pertinent to note the grounds on which the High Court had set aside the order of the Reference Court, so that the same is kept in consideration while appreciating the contentions of both the parties and finally adjudicating on the issues involved.
6. The High Court was of the opinion that the evidence produced by the appellants for proving their claim of inadequacy of the compensation awarded was insufficient. The High Court also held that the witnesses produced for examination by the appellant were inconsistent in their testimony, especially Dattatraya Trimbakrao Tirthkar, father of the appellant, and Ramchandra Shankarrao Baraskar, an engineer and also the valuer in respect of the market value of the acquired property. As per the High Court, the father of the appellant was unable to show how the acquired property was mutated in the name of the appellant, whether by partition or purchase by his guardian. Further, the valuer was unable to say in his deposition the date of his visit to the acquired property for the purpose of valuation. The evidence on record adduced by the claimant was also unsatisfactory, as he could not prove the factum of having answered the notice under Section 9 of the Act and his claim for Rs.7000/- for the vacant plot. Moreover, the third
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
