Back
2009(3) Supreme 626
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Navanath & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 92-105 of 2004
With
{C.A. No. 106/2004, C.A. Nos. 107-113/2004, C.A. Nos. 114-118/2004, C.A. No. 119/2004, C.A. Nos.2591-2597/2009(@ SLP[C] Nos.2804-2810/2004}
Decided on : 15-04-2009
(1994) 5 SCC 138; (1991) 4 SCC 195 – Relied upon.
(b) Administrative Law – Any circular letter allowing certain guidelines may not be applicable – It does not mean that High Court will, on certain assumptions, interfere with a report prepared by State officials on the basis of those guidelines. (Para 27)
(1995) 2 SCC 305 – Distinguished.
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – Determination of compensation of lands on the basis of capitalization method in relation to fruit bearing trees is well known. (Para 29)
(2007) 6 SCC 792; (1998)6 SCC 233; (2005) 9 SCC 662; AIR 2008 SC 938; (2002) 3 SCC 527 – Relied upon.
(d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – Market value of the land cannot be determined both on the basis of sale instance as also on capitalization method keeping in view the fact that it had fruit bearing trees. (Para 33)
1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 637 – Relied upon.
(e) Judicial Propriety – A court of law must base its decision on appreciation of evidence brought on record by applying the correct legal principles – Surmises and conjectures alone cannot form the basis of a judgment. (Para 37)
Facts of the case :
1. Land measuring 182 hectares belonging to 274 individual was acquired for construction of a medium irrigation project commonly known as “Uthala Irrigation Project”.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the market value of the said lands from Rs.130/- to Rs.230/- per Acre. In addition thereto, however, compensation was, inter alia, granted for fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe lines, structures of cow-shed/Gotha and Bandh etc. inter alia holding that some of the lands under acquisition were Jirayat and some were Bagayat lands but not notified as such. Statutory allowance at the rate of 30% over the amount of compensation was also granted. Additional compensation at the rate of 12 per centum per annum of the market value from the date of publication of notification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award, i.e., 27.7.1990, was also granted.
3. Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act was made by the Collector at the instance of appellants herein to the Reference Court.
4. The Reference Court fixed a sum of Rs,1,00,000/- per hectare as market value for the Bagayat lands; a sum of Rs. 75,000/- per hectare was determined for the Jirayat lands besides other statutory dues.
5. By reason of the impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the State in part upon re-classifying the entire land under acquisition into four groups, namely, (i) Pot-Kharab land; (ii) dry land under cultivation; (iii) land under seasonal irrigation; and (iv) land under perennial irrigation. On the basis of the aforementioned sub-classification, the market value was determined at (i) for perennially irrigated land at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare; (ii) for dry land at Rs.50,000/- per hectare, (iii) for land under seasonal irrigation at Rs.75,000/- per hectare and (iv) for Pot-Kharab land at Rs.10,000/- per hectare.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed with cost.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 2804-2810 of 2004.
2. These appeals by special leave arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20th/21st March, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeals preferred by the State in part from a judgment and award dated 24.07.1995.
3. The Government of Maharashtra intended to undertake construction of a medium irrigation project on the Uthala River at Patoda Taluka in the District of Beed commonly known as “Uthala Irrigation Project”. For the said purpose, lands situated at village Tagadgao were acquired. The total land sought to be acquired measured 182 Hectares and belonged to 274 individual land owners. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued on 6.10.1988. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 6.7.1989. An award was published on 29.06.1990.
4. The acquired lands were classified in two categories; (1) Bagayat lands (irrigated lands); and (2) Jirayat lands (non-irrigated lands but are otherwise cultivable).
In these appeals, we are not concerned with the question as regards classification of the acquired lands as also the amount of compensation computed therefor.
5. Claimants - appellants, however, contend that the lands had fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe lines, structures of cow-shed/Gotha and Bandh etc. Indisputably, the Special Land Acquisition Officer classified the said lands into following six categories:
Group Total Total Area Total Pot- Area Compen No. Survey Acquired Kharab Cultivable sation Numbers Rate paid under (per Are) Acquisition Hec. Are Hec. Are Hec. Are Rs.
I 8 36.24 0.89 35.35 130.00
II 19 87.06 1.81 85.25 150.00
III 13 47.71 0.82 46.89 170.00
IV 4 10.36 – 10.36 190.00
V – – – – –
VI 2 1.13 – 1.13 230.00
Total 46 182.50 3.52 178.98
6. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the market value of the said lands from Rs.130/- to Rs.230/- per Acre. In addition thereto, however, compensation was, inter alia, granted for fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe lines, structures of cow-shed/Gotha and Bandh etc. inter alia holding that some of the lands under acquisition were Jirayat and some were Bagayat lands but not notified as such. Most of the lands having dry cultivation are found to be of medium to superior quality. Relying on the 7/12 extract entered in the revenue record for the last three years, it was held that though the lands had been shown as wetlands but they are in fact seasonally irrigated, and hence cannot be treated as bagayat lands. The valuation of the said lands, therefore, was made treating them as Jirayat lands. Statutory allowance at the rate of 30% over the amount of compensation was also granted as provided by Section 23(2) of the Act. Additional compensation at the rate of 12 per centum per annum of the market value from the date of publication of notification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award, i.e., 27.7.1990, was also granted.
7. Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act was made by the Collector at the instance of appellants herein to the Reference Court.
Dr. Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad (PW2) was examined. He was a Horticulturist. Appellants also examined one Ramhair Bayaji Ghodake (PW3) a Consulting Engineer.
The State on its behalf examined Ramkrishna Ganpatrao Chaudhari, Horticulture Inspector working in the Office of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sangli and Kisan Amrutrao Widekar, sub-Divisional Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Division on its behalf.
8. The Reference Judge examined all the matters referred to him on a case by case basis. Indisputably, out of 182 reference cases, in 108 matters witnesses were examined and documents were proved. However, in 74 matters neither any witness was examined nor any document was proved.
9. The Reference Court classified the lands principally in two categories. It disagreed with th
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
