Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its District Collector and ors. – Respondents
Versus
Bhimdeo s/o Rattu Rathod and ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 3420 & 3421 of 2018
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP
For the Respondent:Mr. Vikas G. Kodale, h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18, 4, 11, 12(2), 23 - Lands - Valuation Of Acquired Land - Market Price - Compensation - Lands were acquired for minor irrigation project - Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to fix market price - Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award compensation at rate of Rs.3,750/- per R thereby determining valuation of acquired land apart from valuation of trees – Held, Claimant stands in position of plaintiff and onus on him to adduce necessary and relevant evidence in proof of objection for higher compensation - Court is also enjoined to carefully scrutinse and analyse evidence and applying arm chair test of a prudent purchaser and a willing vendor or realised income on crops, true, correct and fair market value should be arrived at - Reference Court has absolutely failed to apply these tests in determining compensation - Reference Court seems to have enhanced compensation in respect of acquired lands when there was no reliable evidence produced by claimants to support their claim of enhancement except two sale instances, which were found to be unreliable - Except two sale deeds no evidence was produced by claimants in respect of their claim of enhancement of compensation - Enhancement awarded by reference Court in respect of fruit trees is also found to be an empty exercise without making careful scrutiny of evidence of expert and his report and its admissibility - Findings recorded by reference Court are liable to be upset - Claimants have failed to prove their claim for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 and 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Reference Court has committed an error in awarding compensation in respect of acquired land as well as fruit trees - Impugned common judgment and award passed is liable to be quashed and set aside by allowing appeals - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The State has preferred these two appeals feeling aggrieved by the common impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.05 of 2013 and LAR No.06 of 2013 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” for the sake of convenience). Both appeals can be disposed of by common judgment.
2. The following factual scenario would cover the dispute in narrow compass:
| (1) | Name of the Village | Kolwadi Tanda, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad | ||||||||
| (2) |
| |||||||||
| (3) | Date of Notification U/s. 4 of L.A. Act published in Mah. Gov. Gazette | Date: 31-7-1995 | ||||||||
| (4) | Date of Notice U/s.4 of L.A. Act received by the claimants. | Date: 02-4-1998 | ||||||||
| (5) | Date of possession of the land taken by the Ex. Engg. by private negotiation | Date: 09-4-1996 | ||||||||
| (6) | Date of Award U/sec. 11 | Date 25-7-2000 | ||||||||
| (7) | Date on which Notice of the award u/s. 12(2) received by the claimants. | Date: 22-1-2001 | ||||||||
| (8) | Date of payment of compensation | Date: 24-1-2001 | ||||||||
The lands were acquired for minor irrigation project.
3. In LAR No.05 of 2013, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to fix the market price at the rate of Rs.59,400/- for 1 H 98 R classifying it as Jirayat land (Rs.300/- per R). The Reference Court enhanced the same at Rs.2,500/- per R. In LAR No.06 of 2013, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,750/- per R thereby determining the valuation of the acquired land at Rs.2,85,000/- apart from valuation of trees.
4. Heard Mr. Virdhe, AGP for Appellants/State and Mr. Vikas Kodale, holding for Mr. V. D. Gunale, learned counsel for respondents/original claimants.
5. Mr. Virdhe, learned AGP invited my attention to the impugned judgment paragraphs 19 to 24. He submitted that the original claimants have placed on record two sale instances in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. One sale instance is of dated 15th April, 1997 for 4 R land, which cannot be taken into consideration as a base to determine the compensation. The Reference Court has also observed to that effect in paragraph 21 and not acted upon. He further pointed out that the second sale instance is of dated 22nd April, 1998 for 20 R land for consideration of Rs.50,000/-. He submitted that Section 4 notification came to be published in the Government Gazette on 31st July, 1997 and public notice under Section 4 came to be published on 2nd April, 1998. The sale instance of dated 22nd April, 1998 is of post notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Reference Court also observed that second sale instance is of post notification under Section 4 of the Act.
6. Mr. Virdhe, learned AGP submitted that the claimants had filed reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. As per the issues framed by the Reference Court, the burden is on the claimants to prove that the market price of the acquired land was much higher than the market price determined by the SLAO while passing the award by placing on record the comparative sale instances in support of their claim. He submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in observing that since there was no evidence produced on behalf of the respondents/State in order to show what was the market price of the lands in the month of April, 1998, the evidence put forth by the claimants for enhancement was accepted. The Reference Court was pleased to determine the market price of the acquired land at Rs.2,500/- per R for Jirayat land and Rs.3,750/- per R for Bagayat land. Mr. Virdhe, learned AGP vehemently submitted that the Reference Court has completely overlooked the issues and the burden to prove the market price. The burden was on the claimants to prove the market price was hi
