SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 693

Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Digamber & Others
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others
Civil Appeal No.5346 of 2013
Decided On : 01-08-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot reverse f indings of fact recorded by Reference Judge on relevant issue.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 18 and 23-Acquisition of land-Compensation-Enhancement-Reference court has rightly placed reliance upon sale instances for comparison with that of acquired land after satisfying the fact that it has also acquired non-agricultural potentiality-Findings of fact and reasons recorded by Judge of reference court in determining market value of acquired land are well founded and the same are based on facts, cogent and legal evidence adduced on record by appellants-Same has been rightly accepted by reference Judge after having noticed that Land Acquisition Officer in a casual manner rejected claim of appellants and determined meager sum of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare as market value of land which is unrealistic and contrary to legal evidence on record and law laid down by Apex Court-Findings of fact recorded by reference Judge on relevant issue has been erroneously set aside by High Court without assigning valid reasons-It would be just and proper to restore judgment and award passed by reference court. (Paras 24 and 25)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

Judgment :

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave has been granted by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2013.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed in First Appeal No. 646 of 1998 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and award dated 02.05.1998 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded passed in land acquisition reference case and restored the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded by allowing the appeal filed by the respondents.

3. It is contended by Ms. Bina Madhavan, the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment is contrary to the legal evidence on record particularly Exhs. 20-21 which are the sale deeds of the plots covered in the same area that were prior to the notification that is before 14.06.1990 which sale instances were very well considered by the reference court for comparison and the finding of fact was recorded that the said instances are comparable to the acquired land to that of the plots covered in the sale deeds. Therefore, it is contended that the acquired land has the similar non agricultural potentiality and the State Government had acquired the said land in favour of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (in short ‘the Corporation’) for the purpose of formation of industrial estate and sale of the plots for commercial purposes. It is urged by the learned counsel that the judgment and award passed by the reference court is erroneously set aside by the High Court as it has found fault with it in placing reliance upon the sale instances and has wrongly re-determined the market value of the land which findings recorded by the High Court in its judgment are not only erroneous in law but also suffers from error in fact and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. The further legal contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that learned reference Judge has rightly awarded the compensation of the acquired land after re-determining its market value based on legal evidence on record at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. feet. The documentary evidence produced by the appellants are sale deeds marked as Exhs. 22 and 23 pertaining to years 1991 and 1993 respectively and Exhs. 24 and 25 pertaining to the year 1994, ie. Post acquisition notification period. That the plots covered in the said sale instances are non agricultural plots of Venkateshnagar Layout which are comparable to the acquired land is the finding of fact recorded by the learned Judge of the reference court on proper appreciation of legal evidence on record. The same is supported by the decision of this Court in the case of The special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahbi Bawa Sahib (JT 2002 (3) SC 176), wherein this Court in the aforesaid case has held that the reference court can take into consideration the plots which are covered in the sale instances which were small bits of land, if the acquired land is comparable to the land covered in sale deeds and that placing reliance on such sale instances by the reference court for re-determination of the market value of the acquired land is permissible in law. It is further urged by the learned counsel that this vital aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the learned Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and award by setting aside the judgment and award of the reference court and restored the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which is vitiated both on facts and on law. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the judgment of the reference court must be restored.

5. Further, it is contended by her that the learned Judge of the High Court has erred in affirming the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 50,000/- per hectare of the acquired land ignoring its potentiality































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top