Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 1605
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
U.V. BAKRE, J.
Pramod S. Priolkar & Another
Versus
Deputy Collector & S.D.O & Another
FIRST APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2003 & FIRST APPEAL NO. 324 OF 2003
Decided on : 24-08-2012
For the Appellants:R.G. Ramani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Amey Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate.
Co-owners of acquired land are entitled to compensation pro rata, and a previous judgment of the Reference Court in a land acquisition case can be relied upon for the determination of the market value of the acquired land.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1)
Fact of the Case:
The land was acquired for the construction of a road. The appellants filed applications under section 18 of the L.A. Act for higher compensation. The Reference Court rejected the references. The appellants appealed for higher compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 15.60 per square metre. The impugned Judgments and Awards were set aside. The market price of the acquired lands was fixed at Rs. 15.60 per square metre, and the appellants were entitled to receive all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 15.60 per square metre.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants, as co-owners of the acquired land, were entitled to compensation pro rata. It also emphasized that a previous judgment of the Reference Court in a land acquisition case can be relied upon by the parties for the determination of the market value of the acquired land.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were allowed, the impugned Judgments and Awards were quashed and set aside, and the market price of the acquired lands was fixed at Rs. 15.60 per square metre. The appellants were entitled to receive all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The above two appeals are taken up jointly for disposal as they pertain to the land adjacent to one another acquired under the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act).
2. Land was acquired for construction of a road from Querim to Dyghode in Ponda Taluka. The Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 7/2/1989. This, inter alia, included land from survey nos. 101/1 and 105/1 of village Priol of Ponda Taluka. An area admeasuring 380 square metres was acquired from survey no. 101/1 (part) and an area of 1250 square metres was acquired from survey no. 105/1. The appellant of F. A. No. 323/2003 had laid claim for undivided 50% share in the said acquired land. The remaining 50% share belonged to Shri Sadanand G. S. Priolkar. The said acquisition, inter alia, also included land from survey nos. 101/3 and 102/1. An area of 310 square metres was acquired from survey no. 101/3 (part) whereas an area of 1775 square metres was acquired from survey no.102/1. The appellant of F. A. No. 324/2003 had laid his claim to the said acquired land. The learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.), by Award dated 25/10/1991 awarded the universal rate of Rs. 6/-per square metre to the entire land acquired vide the said notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, published on 7/2/1989.
3. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., both the appellants filed applications under section 18 of the L.A. Act which gave rise to the Land Acquisition Cases No.170/1996 and No.168/1996. The applicant of L.A.C. No. 170/1996 who is the appellant of First Appeal No. 323/2003 had claimed the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre before the Reference Court, whereas the applicant of L.A.C. No. 160/1996 who is the appellant of First Appeal No. 324/2003 had claimed the rate of Rs. 60/-per square metre.
4. Both the appellants had examined themselves before the Reference Court and had relied upon Judgment and Award dated 25/9/2000 passed in the L.A.C No. 102/94 and the sale deed dated 19/6/1986 executed between Naguesh Govind Alavani and Devidas Bhide.
5. The learned Reference Court, by Judgment and Award dated 25/8/2003, passed in each of the land acquisition cases, held that neither the land in L.A.C No.102/94 nor the sale deed dated 19/5/89 can be used as comparable instance for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. Both the references, therefore, came to be rejected. The applicant of L.A.C No.173/1996 has filed the First Appeal No. 323/2003, whereas the applicant of L.A.C. No. 168/96 has filed First Appeal no. 324/2003.
6. Mr. R. G. Ramani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the appellants argued that admittedly, the appellant of F. A. No. 323/2003 is the co-owner of the land bearing survey nos. 101/1 and 105/1, he having 50% share and Shri Sadanand G. S. Priolkar, the applicant of L.A.C No. 102/94 having the remaining 50% share. Since the land is the same, the learned counsel argued that it was totally wrong on the part of the Reference Court to hold that the land in L.A.C No. 102/94 could not be used as comparable instance for determination of market value. He further contended that since the land belonging to the appellant of F. A. No. 323/2003 and to the said Sadanand Priolkar was one and the same, the finding of the reference Court that there is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that the nature of the land in L.A.C No. 102/94 and the nature of the acquired land is similar in nature, is wrong. He further submitted that since admittedly the appellant of F. A. No. 323/2003 is the co-owner of the acquired land from survey nos. 101/1 and 105/1 and further since the other co-owner, namely Sadanand Priolkar, has been granted the enhanced rate of Rs. 15.60 per square metre for the same land in L.A.C No.102/94, the appellant of F. A. No. 323/2003 is automatically entitled to the said enhanced rate. In this regard h
