Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
MANISH PITALE, J.
State of Maharashtra & Others - Appellants
Versus
Sushilabai & Others - Respondents
First Appeal No. 918 of 1991 with Cross Objection No. 94 of 2017
Decided On : 13-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : M.A. Kadu
For the Respondents: R.L. Khapre, K.S. Narwade
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof for enhanced compensation, the reliability of evidence and valuation reports, and the finality of the draft award. The Court emphasized the need for the claimant to provide independent evidence and expert witnesses to support the claim for enhanced compensation, and the unreliability of evidence based on spot inspection and reports of the Forest Department.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - 15-10-1987 - 9 H 60 R in survey no. 24 and 10 H 36 R in survey no.25 of mouza Wai, Taluka Kelapur, District Yavatmal - Section 18 - Land Acquisition Case No.97 of 1990 - Draft award dated 15-04-1989 - Award dated 09-02-1990 - Compensation - Fruit bearing trees - Expert witness - Valuation report - Divisional Commissioner's approval - Annual increase in assessment of market value - Compensation for acquired land - Finality of draft award - Burden of proof - Evidence and material on record - Judgment and order of the Reference Court - Appeal and cross objection - Modified compensation
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for which a draft award was prepared on 15-04-1989 and subsequently an award was pronounced on 09-02-1990. The claimant sought enhanced compensation for the acquired land, including compensation for fruit bearing trees and other trees, relying on the draft award and the evidence of the earlier Land Acquisition Officer. The State appealed against the Reference Court's judgment and award, claiming that the claimant failed to provide independent evidence for the enhanced compensation and that the valuation reports were unreliable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving her claim for enhanced compensation, as she did not produce any expert witness or independent evidence in support of her claim. The Court also found the evidence of the earlier Land Acquisition Officer to be suspicious and unreliable, as it was based on spot inspection and reports of the Forest Department. The Court held that the draft award could not be relied upon as it had not attained finality, and the valuation reports could not be considered as the Land Acquisition Officer was not the author of the reports. The Court also noted that the Reference Court erred in failing to grant appropriate benefit of further enhancement for the acquired land and in granting compensation for fruit bearing trees and other trees without sufficient evidence.
Issues: The issues involved the burden of proof for enhanced compensation, the reliability of the evidence and valuation reports, the finality of the draft award, and the grant of appropriate compensation for the acquired land and trees.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving her claim for enhanced compensation, as she did not produce any expert witness or independent evidence in support of her claim. The Court also found the evidence of the earlier Land Acquisition Officer to be suspicious and unreliable, and that the draft award and valuation reports could not be relied upon. The Court also held that the Reference Court erred in failing to grant appropriate benefit of further enhancement for the acquired land and in granting compensation for fruit bearing trees and other trees without sufficient evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed to quash and set aside the compensation granted for fruit bearing trees and other trees, and to restore the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The cross objection was partly allowed to increase the compensation for the acquired land. The consequential benefits were to be paid to the claimant on the modified compensation. The judgment and order of the Reference Court were modified accordingly.
1. This appeal and cross objection were decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 13-11-2014. But, thereafter, a review application was filed on behalf of the respondents/claimants pointing out that original respondent no.3-Anil Gulabrao Mankar had expired and that since appropriate steps in that regard were not taken, the judgment and order disposing of this appeal and cross objection were rendered a nullity in view of the death of said Anil Gulabrao Mankar. The said review application was allowed by this Court on 09-08-2017 and the said judgment and order dated 13-11-2014 disposing of this appeal and cross objection was recalled and it was directed that they would be listed for final hearing again.
2. It is in pursuance of the said order dated 09-08-2017 that the judgment and order dated 13-11-2014 was recalled and the appeal and cross objection have come up for final hearing again before this Court. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard in detail in this appeal and cross objection. On 14-02-2018, a pursis was filed on behalf of the appellant/State and a document, being an order dated 07-04-2017 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.208 of 2009 was sought to be placed on record, which was objected to on behalf of the respondents/claimants. Subject to the objection raised by the respondents/ claimants, the said document was kept on record of the file of this appeal and the cross objection by an order dated 22-02-2018 and the judgment was reserved.
3. The subject matter of the present appeal and cross objection is the land belonging to predecessor of the respondents/claimants/cross objectors being land admeasuring 9 H 60 R in survey no. 24 and land admeasuring 10 H 36 R in survey no.25 of mouza Wai, Taluka Kelapur, District Yavatmal. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued for acquisition of the aforesaid land on 15-10-1987. It has been brought on record that the possession of the said land was already taken on 25-01-1987, in view of the urgency. It is claimed that a joint measurement report pertaining to the said land was prepared on 04-09-1987 by the then Land Acquisition Officer Shri A.B. Deshmukh on which the claimant had raised an objection on 30-11-1987. It was claimed that there were fruit bearing trees and other trees standing on the aforesaid land when the process of acquisition was initiated.
4. The said Land Acquisition Officer prepared a draft award dated 15-04-1989 in respect of the said land. It was forwarded by him for approval to the Divisional Commissioner as the amount involved in the award was more than 15 lakhs. On 04-07-1989, the Divisional Commissioner sent a letter to the said Land Acquisition Officer granting approval to the said draft award. It was stated in the said letter that the approval was accorded assuming that the authenticity and correctness of all the documents and data had been personally verified by the Land Acquisition Officer and that the responsibility of any controversy or complicity arising out of the said case would be the sole responsibility of the Land Acquisition Officer. It was further stated that the Land Acquisition Officer should check and recheck the whole award to his own satisfaction. Thus, the approval was subject to aforesaid condition mentioned in the letter.
5. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer changed and one Shri Chinchole was appointed as the Land Acquisition Officer. On 09-02-1990, the said new Land Acquisition Officer pronounced award in terms of the provisions of the said Act, in respect of acquisition of the aforesaid land. In this award, the claimant was paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per hectare and some amount was granted towards trees on the said land. It has come on record that thereafter on 03-02-1990, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted a spot inspection on the said land. It was claimed that a report was prepared as regards the trees, bunds and well l
