The genuineness and bona fide of sale instances relied upon to determine the market value of acquired land must be proved, and the evidence of experts who visited the property after the material date is not credible.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - GENUINENESS OF SALE INSTANCES - EVIDENCE - INTEREST - AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT - APPLICABILITY - EQUITY - INVOCATION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, the State through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, challenged the common judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which enhanced the compensation and awarded benefits to the respondents-claimants under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). The land in question was acquired for a public purpose, namely, a public playground, and was situated in Mulund (East), a suburb of Greater Bombay. The appellants contended that the learned Single Judge erred in enhancing the compensation by applying wrong and illegal criteria, as the genuineness and bona fide of the sale instances relied upon were not proved, and that the evidence of the experts was not credible since they visited the property in 1990, whereas the material date was 1972. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that they were entitled to compensation based on the then-prevalent market value, which was Rs. 300/- per square meter, and that the appellants could not challenge the admissibility of the evidence in respect of the sale transactions as they did not object before the Reference Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the two sale instances to determine the market value of the acquired land, as the genuineness and bona fide of the transactions were not proved. The Court further held that the evidence of the experts was not credible as they visited the property in 1990, whereas the material date was 1972. The Court also held that the claimants failed to establish a case for enhancement of compensation and that the learned Single Judge erred in law in according various benefits to the claimants under the amended provisions of the Act. The Court further held that the award of interest in land acquisition awards is governed by statutory provisions and equity cannot be invoked for enhancement.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in enhancing the compensation by applying wrong and illegal criteria? 2. Whether the genuineness and bona fide of the sale instances relied upon were proved? 3. Whether the evidence of the experts was credible? 4. Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation based on the then-prevalent market value? 5. Whether the appellants could challenge the admissibility of the evidence in respect of the sale transactions? 6. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in law in according various benefits to the claimants under the amended provisions of the Act? 7. Whether equity can be invoked for enhancement of interest in land acquisition awards?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the two sale instances to determine the market value of the acquired land, as the genuineness and bona fide of the transactions were not proved. The Court further held that the evidence of the experts was not credible as they visited the property in 1990, whereas the material date was 1972. 2. The Court held that the claimants failed to establish a case for enhancement of compensation and that the learned Single Judge erred in law in according various benefits to the claimants under the amended provisions of the Act. 3. The Court further held that the award of interest in land acquisition awards is governed by statutory provisions and equity cannot be invoked for enhancement.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgments were set aside to the extent they concerned the respective Land Acquisition References. No order was made as to costs.

JUDGEMENT - M.S. RANE, J. :---The State through the Special Land Acquisition Officer is the appellants for and on behalf of the acquiring body - the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in these appeals which are filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for brevity's sake) challenging the common Judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 30th October, 1991/3rd March, 1992 in various Land Acquisition References including in the References under the Appeals herein as mentioned in the title, filed under section 18 of the said Act by the respondents - the original claimants. The learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment enhanced the compensation as also awarded benefits to the claimants under the amended provisions of the said Act. The appellants are challenging the said findings of the learned Single Judge in these appeals. The plot of land under acquisition in both the appeals related to one and the same Notification, the Award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Officer is also common so also the Judgments by the Reference Court. The another common features in both these appeals are that the plot of land in both the appeals are acquired for the same purpose and also situated and located in the same vicinity.

2. The impugned Judgment of both these appeals as stated is common. The award of the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer is also common. The Notification for acquisition is common. The evidence adduced by the parties and relied upon by the Reference Court is also common. The issues raised are also common in both these appeals, so also the principles of law. Hence both the appeals are being disposed of with a common Judgment.

3. In order to appreciate the challenge in these appeals, it will be necessary to advert to few relevant facts in the matter which are common in both the appeals.

(i) A plot of land admeasuring about 10,980.90 Sq. fts. was acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as acquiring body) for the public purpose namely the Public Play Ground. The acquired land is situated at Mulund (East) - one of the Suburbs of Greater Bombay in Municipal Ward No. 'T' bearing Survey No. 177 and belonging to various owners including the claimants/respondents in both the appeals. The plot of land involved in Appeal No. 700 of 1993 bears CTS No. 1328 admeasuring 477.43 Sq. mtrs. of which claimants 1 and 2 claim ownership and respondent No. 3 also claimed some interest which the claimants amongst themselves settled at later stage. The land involved in Appeal No. 219 of 1995 bears C.T.S. No. 1358 admeasuring about 464.05 Sq. Mtrs.

(ii) The entire acquired land was reserved for the public purpose viz. Public Play Ground in the Development Plan prepared by the acquiring body and the Government under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (in short MRTP Act) and which was published on 9th January, 1964. The said plan was given final approval on 20th December, 1965. Prior thereto Improvement Committee of the acquiring body as also the acquiring body by their respective resolutions dated 17th December, 1963 and 7th February, 1964 ear-marked and reserved the entire land for the said public purpose.

4. Since the acquired land formed part of the Development plan as stated earlier, notification under section 126(4) of the MRTP Act read with section 6 of the said Act was issued by the Commissioner, Bombay Division on 22nd October, 1972 for the purpose of acquisition of the said land. On 1st July, 1974 possession of the land was taken over by the acquiring body.

5. After issuance of the notifications, the claimants including the respondents in both the appeals appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 233/- per Sq. Mtr. as a market value. The Acquiring body also submitted its valuation through the expert offering compensation to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(Bom) 277

The genuineness and bona fide of sale instances relied upon to determine the market value of acquired land must be proved, and the evidence of experts who visited the property after the material date is not credible.

Cases Referred (3)