Back
2009 Supreme(Bom) 3
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. TATED
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (III) & Another
Versus
Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane & Others
FIRST APPEAL NO.729 OF 2003 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.329 OF 2001 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.783 OF 2003 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.326 OF 2001 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.784 OF 2003 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.327 OF 2001
Decided on : 05-01-2009
For the Appellants:S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. For the Respondents:A.B. Kale, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principles for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including the consideration of sale instances, valuation reports, and the need for evidence to support claims.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Compensation Calculation - Section 4, Section 6, Section 11, Section 18 - The court discussed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 4, 6, 11, and 18, and their interpretation in determining the compensation for acquired lands. The court emphasized the principles for determining compensation, including the willingness of an informed buyer, market value calculation, and valuation of different types of land. The court also referred to relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land. The Reference Court awarded compensation, which was challenged by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the Appeals. The Appellants contended that the Reference Court did not consider the exact market rate of the lands and erred in awarding compensation. The Respondents argued that the sale instances considered by the Reference Court were comparable and justified the compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Reference Court's consideration of sale instances and valuation reports was appropriate in determining the compensation. It held that the Appellants failed to provide evidence to support their claim and emphasized the principles for determining compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act and relevant case law.
Issues: The issues involved the proper calculation of compensation for acquired lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the validity of the Reference Court's decision in awarding compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles for determining compensation, including the consideration of sale instances, valuation reports, and the interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It emphasized the need for evidence to support claims and referred to relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer were dismissed, upholding the Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in awarding compensation.
(K.K. Tated, J.)
1. All the above First Appeals are directed against the common Judgment and award dated 18th December, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon. As identical question of facts and law arise in these Appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these Appeals by common Judgment.
2. The relevant facts in the present case are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') dated 21st August, 1997 for Respondents/ original claimants land from village Singayat, Taluka-Jamner, District-Jalgaon for Waghur Project. After following due process of law S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 26th February, 1998. After considering the objections raised by Respondents/ original claimants, the S.L.A.O. declared the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 dated 18th August, 2000 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired lands as follows;
GROUP RATE PER HECTOR (Rs.)
2 25,875/-
3 32,200/-
4 34,500/-
5 39,100/-
6 43,700/-
7 43,700/-
8 43,700/-
3. Being aggrieved by the said award, Respondents/ original claimants preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for enhancement of compensation. In the said Reference, the Reference Court awarded compensation in respect of Bagayat land at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Hector, in respect of Jirayat land Rs.2,00,000/-and in respect of Pot kharab land Rs.1,00,000/-per Hector. The Reference Court also enhanced marginal compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees.
4. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the S.L.A.O. preferred above mentioned First Appeals challenging the Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 18th December, 2001. It is the case of the Appellants that the learned Reference Court has not considered the exact market rate of the lands under acquisition on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and without considering the record of the S.L.A.O., Jalgaon the exorbitant amount of compensation is granted in favour of the Respondents/ original claimants. The Appellants further contended that the Reference Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the State Government by examining the Awwal Karkun from the office of the S.L.A.O., Jalgaon, who has categorically stated that the compensation granted by the S.L.A.O. was proper and in accordance with the provisions of law. They further contended that they produced the valuation report of the fruit bearing trees and on the basis of the same, the Reference Court should have awarded compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. It is the case of the Appellants that the Reference Court has considered the sale instance dated 16th January, 1996 in respect of 50 Rs land from village Shingayat for consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-and another sale instance dated 13th August, 1997 for 40 Rs from village Hingane for the consideration of Rs.1,02,000/-which are not comparable sale instances for considering the market value of acquired land.
5. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the market value of Bagayat land is to be calculated double the market rate of Jirayat land and market value in respect of Pot Kharab land to be calculated half of the market value of Jirayat land. On the basis of these submissions, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the Appellants prayed that the Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 18th December, 2001 to be set aside.
6. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that witness No.1 for the original Respondent - State Shri S.S. Beldar specifically stated that the S.L.A.O. awarded the proper price in respect of the acquired land.
7. It is to be noted here that DW No.1 Beldar was working as Awwal Karkun in the office of the S.L.A.O.,
