Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
The State of Maharashtra — Appellant
versus
Ishwarsharan Kedarnath Bhargava — Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 428 OF 1991
IN
L.A.R . NO. 34 OF 1984
WITH
F.A. NOS. 429/1991, 430/1991, 195/1992, 431/1991, 97/2000,
432/1991, 177/1995, 433/1991, 176/1995, 434/1991,
175/1995, 435/1991, 797/1994, 436/1991, 205/1991,
437/1991, 204/1991, 438/1991, 690/1991, 378/1993,
401/1995, 1002/2002 AND 1215/1996
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 18000/1996, 17998/1996 AND
18002/1996.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 183/2004, 184/2004, 185/2004,
186/2004, 2262/2004, 2263/2004, 2264/2004, 2265/2004,
2257/2004, 2258/2004, 2259/2004, AND 2260/2004
Decided on : August 16, 2007
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 23 - Acquisition of land - Compensation awarded by L.A.O. - Reference for enhancement of - Compensation enhanced by Reference Court - Reduction of sought by State - Claimants failed to justify higher compensation - No appropriate evidence adduced by State to seek reduction in compensation awarded by Reference Court - Award of compensation not liable to be interfered with. - Besides the above evidence, various claimants entered the witness box. Witness No. 1, ’I ’ had referred in his statement judgments in LAQ Nos. 34/84 and 48/86 where the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 7.20 per sq. mtr. In his statement he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. He also stated that the land in question was situate at a distance of about 8-9 kms. from Thane Creek Bridge connecting Sion-Panvel Highway. He did say that water, electricity and other facilities were available. He admitted that compared t o the Municipal areas, Gram Panchayat taxes were less and the land was situate in Gram Panchayat. As is evident from the above facts, there is hardly any relevant and material piece of evidence which could form basis for awarding any higher compensation. Not only the claimants but even the State has failed to discharge its onus as it was for the State to show that the compensation awarded by the Collector was justified and was the fair market value of the land in question. However, neither of the parties cared to lead proper and cogent evidence on record to support their respective claims. The primary onus is always on the claimants but the State is not absolved of its liability to bring to the notice of the Court adequate evidence if they pray that the compensation amount awarded by Reference Court should be reduced. In fact, the present case is a case of no evidence other than the judgments of the Court which have been relied upon by the Reference Court. It has to be accepted that the judgments or awards of the Courts relating to the same land or the lands surrounding the acquired land are relevant piece of evidence and cannot be a precept to determine fair market value of the land in consonance with the convictions of Section 23 of the Act. The Reference Court, while relying upon judgment in LAR No. 60/83, Exhibit 24/2 and keeping in view the time factor, increasing trend of the value of the land and by applying reasonable guess work, awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq. mtr. High Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The judgment of the Reference Court neither suffers from error of jurisdiction nor error in appreciation of evidence. The order is in consonance with the settled principles of law and calls for no interference by High Court. Consequently, all the appeals, cross objections and civil applications are dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
In the year 1963-64, the Government of Maharashtra took a decision to acquire the lands on eastern and western sides of Thane- Belapur Road for a public purpose viz. development and utilisation of the same in Thane Harbour Panvel and Trans Thane Creek, for industrial, commercial and residential development. This project was to be named as New Bombay City Project. In furtherance to this public purpose, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, was issued for acquiring different lands belonging to different land owners out of Gat Nos. 14, 28, 35,, 39, 166, 170 and 285 of village Rabale in Thane District during the period 13th September, 1968 to 2nd December, 1972. The Land Acquisition Officer, vide his awards of different dates, awarded compensation to the claimants at Rs. 5.40 per sq.metre for acquisition of their respective lands. Different amounts were claimed by the owners of the land in Land Acquisition References. The claimants being dissatisfied with the Award of the Collector preferred applications under Section 18 of the Act and claimed varied amounts of compensation. The learned Reference Court vide its award dated 17th February, 1990 increased the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 12/- per sq.metre, in addition to other compensation payable for construction, etc., depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and also directed the State to pay solatium at the rate of 30 per cent with additional market value and also awarded interest under the provisions of the Act.
2. Aggrieved from the judgment of the Reference Court, the State filed the above 24 appeals before this Court. Some of the claimants, claiming further enhancement of the awarded compensation, have also filed three cross objections in appeals. Consequently, we would be disposing of all the cases aforereferred by this common judgment as common question of fact and law arise for consideration in the present cases.
3. The learned Reference Court, after noticing the pleading of the parties, framed the following issues and answered them as follows:-
“ (1) Do the Claimants prove that having regard to the potential value of the land, the land acquired was ideal for residential complex?
(2a) Are the Claimants entitled to claim compensation at the enhanced rate per square metre, if yes at what rate?.
(b) Are they entitled to claim additional compensation? If yes, how much? (3) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation as per section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act?
(4) What relief and order? Findings on the above issues are :
(1) Yes.
(2a) Rs. 12/- per square metre.
(b) As shown in order.
(3) As shown in order.
(4) As per final order.”
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State contended that there was no evidence before the Reference Court which could justify enhancement of the compensation for acquisition of the land and the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is unreasonable and unfair. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that on the basis of the award and evidence led by the claimants, the claimants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq.mtere. It was conceded on behalf of both the claimants and the State that the parties have not produced and proved any sale instances which could be examined by the Court of competent jurisdiction for determining the fair market value of the land payable to the claimants by way of compensation. The evidence on record is in the form of statements of the witnesses. The claimants relied upon the statements of three witnesses. The claimants, in addition to examining themselves, have examined a Valuer as witness No.3. In addition to this oral evidence, the claimants produced on record judgments of different Courts pertaining to land acquisition matters as well as certain leas
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
