2013 Supreme(SC) 596

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5160 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.354 of 2012)
Ramanlal Deochand Shah …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5161 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.395 of 2012)
Kantilal Manikchand Shah …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5160, 5161 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.354, 395 of 2012)
Decided on : July 5, 2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land-It is for claimant to prove that amount awarded by Collector needs enhancement.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 18-Acquisition of land-Enhancement of compensation-In a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act on question of adequacy of compensation determined by Collector, burden to prove that Collector's award does not correctly determine amount of compensation payable to landowner is upon owner concerned-It is for claimant to prove that amount awarded by Collector needs enhancement-In absence of any evidence to prove that amount of award by Collector does not represent true market value of property as on date of preliminary notification, Reference Court will be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement-Reference to a Civil Court is not in the nature of an appeal from one forum to other where appellate forum takes a view based on evidence before forum below.

       Held: The Reference Court answered the issues in favour of the appellants and enhanced the compensation payable to them to Rs.85/- per sq. mtr. besides interest at the stipulated rates by similar but separate Awards both dated 31st January, 1991. While doing so, the Reference Court relied entirely upon certain observations made by Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Draft Award prepared by him. The Reference Court held that from the discussion contained in the Draft Award it was not clear as to how the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ Rs.26.25 per sq. mtr. Relying upon the discussion in the Draft Award and taking advantage of an apparent conflict between the discussion contained therein and the amount actually awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.85/- per sq. mtr. as already noticed above. The High Court has, in the appeals filed by the State Government against the enhancement of compensation, reversed the view taken by the Reference Court on the ground that the enhancement was not justified in the absence of any evidence to show that the market value of the property in question was higher than what was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court declared that claimants were in the position of plaintiffs and the burden to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not adequate lay upon them. It was only if that burden was satisfactorily discharged by cogent and reliable evidence that the Reference Court could direct enhancement. No such evidence having been adduced by the landowners, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Reference Court and answered the reference in the negative thereby dismissing the claim made by the landowners.

       We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It is trite that in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the question of adequacy of compensation determined by the collector, the burden to prove that the collector's award does not correctly determine the amount of compensation payable to the landowner is upon the owner concerned. It is for the claimant to prove that the amount awarded by the Collector needs enhancement, and if so, to what extent. The claimant can do so by adducing evidence, whether oral or documentary which the Reference Court would evaluate having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act while determining the compensation payable to the owners. To that extent the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff before the Court. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the amount of award by the Collector does not represent the true market value of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification, the Reference Court will be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement. The Court cannot go by surmises and conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate Court and enhance the amount awarded by reappraising the material that was collected and considered by the Collector. What is important to remember is that a reference to a Civil Court is not in the nature of an appeal from one forum to the other where the appellate forum takes a view based on the evidence before the forum below. The legal position is settled by the decisions of this Court to which we may at this stage refer. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spcl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 751, the controversy related to a correct valuation of a piece of land that was under acquisition. This Court found that the Reference Court had virtually treated the award to be a judgment under appeal hence fallen in error on the fundamental question of the approach to be adopted while answering a reference.

       (B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 18-Acquisition of land-Enhancement of compensation-Defendants-respondents did not produce any documents before Reference Court in support of its case-Even if documents had been produced by defendants, unless the same were either admitted by plaintiff or properly proved and exhibited at the trial, same could not by themselves constitute evidence except where such documents were public documents admissible by themselves under any provision-Sale Deeds executed between third parties do not qualify for such admission-Merely because some documents were referred to in Draft Award by Collector, did not make the documents admissible by them to enable plaintiffs to refer to or rely upon same in support of a possible enhancement-However, in view of misconception about legal requirement matter remanded to Reference Court for fresh disposal.

       Held: It was argued by learned counsel for the appellants that although no evidence was adduced by the claimants to prove that the market value of the acquired land was higher than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants could rely on the documents produced by the respondent-State before the Collector. If that be so, the Sale Deeds to which the Draft Award made a reference, could be referred to and relied upon. There is, in our opinion, no merit in that contention. While it is true that the claimant can always place reliance upon the evidence that may be adduced by a defendant in a suit to the extent the same helps the plaintiff, but the documents that have not been relied upon before the Court by the defendants cannot be referred to or treated as evidence without proper proof of the contents thereof. In the present case the defendantsrespondents did not produce any documents before the Reference Court in support of its case. There was indeed no occasion for them to do so in the absence of affirmative evidence from the claimants. We specifically asked learned counsel for the respondents whether copies of any Sale Deeds had been produced by the defendants before the Reference Court. The answer was in the negative. That being so, it is difficult to appreciate how the appellants could have referred to a document not produced or relied upon by the defendants before the Reference Court. Even if the documents had been produced by the defendants, unless the same were either admitted by the plaintiff or properly proved and exhibited at the trial, the same could not by themselves constitute evidence except where such documents were public documents admissible by themselves under any provision. Sale Deeds executed between third parties do not qualify for such admission. The same had, therefore, to be formally proved unless the opposite party admitted the execution and contents, thereby, in which event no proof may have been necessary for what is admitted, need not be proved.

       Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of the present case no evidence having been adduced by the defendants-respondents, whether documentary or otherwise, there was no question of the appellant relying upon such non-existent evidence. Merely because some documents were referred to in the Draft Award by the Collector, did not make the said documents admissible by them to enable the plaintiffs to refer to or rely upon the same in support of a possible enhancement. If a document upon which the plaintiffs placed reliance was available, there was no reason why the same should not have been produced or relied upon. Inasmuch as no such attempt was made by the plaintiffs, they were not entitled to claim any enhancement.

       The failure or the omission to lead evidence to prove the claim appears in the above context to be a case of some kind of misconception about the legal requirement as to evidence needed to prove cases of enhancement of compensation. We do not in that view see any reason to deny another opportunity to the landowners to prove their cases by adducing evidence in support of their claim for enhancement. Since, however, this opportunity is being granted ex debito justitiae, we deem it fit to direct that if the Reference Court eventually comes to the conclusion that a higher amount was due and payable to the appellantowners, such higher amount including solatium due thereon would not earn interest for the period between the date of the judgment of the Reference Court and the date of this order. These appeals are with that direction allowed, the judgments and orders impugned in the same modified to the extent that while the enhancement order by the Reference Court shall stand set aside, the matters shall stand remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving to the landowners opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claims for higher compensation. No costs.

       Result: Appeals allowed.