SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.
Suwalal S/o Dagdulal Kotecha & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
First Appeal No. 751 of 2006 With Civil Application No. 3732 of 2019
Decided On : 27-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Appellants/Claimants, for the Appellant; Mr. S.G. Sangle, AGP for Respondent /State, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on possession, market value, and sale instances presented as evidence.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 12(2) - The court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court. The appellant/claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 99,787/- along with statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of 71 R area acquired by the State. The respondent/State was directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within three (3) months from the date of the judgment. No order as to costs.

Fact of the Case:

The land admeasuring 71 R from the land survey No.151 situated at village Nandur Ghat, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed owned and possessed by the claimants came to be acquired for the purpose of 33 K.V. Substation of M.S.E.B. at Nandur Ghat. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.65,780/- to the appellant/claimant. The appellant /claimant received the compensation under protest and filed the reference before the Special Land Acquisition Officer praying for enhancement of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the possession of the acquired land was not taken by invoking the urgency clause, but by way of private negotiation. The court considered the sale instances and evidence on record to determine the market value of the acquired land. It allowed the appeal and awarded enhanced compensation to the appellants/claimants.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of the compensation for the acquired land, considering the possession, market value, and sale instances presented by the appellant/claimants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of sale instances and the legal provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine the market value of the acquired land and award enhanced compensation to the appellants/claimants.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and award were quashed. The appellant/claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 99,787/- along with statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of 71 R area acquired by the State. The respondent/State was directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within three (3) months from the date of the judgment. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award passed in L.A.R. No. 68 of 1998 by the reference Court/2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambejogai.

2. The facts giving rise to this the appeal in narrow compass are as under:

    2(a) The land admeasuring 71 R from the land survey No.151 situated at village Nandur Ghat, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed owned and possessed by the claimants came to be acquired for the purpose of 33 K.V. Substation of M.S.E.B. at Nandur Ghat.

    2(b) The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.A.Act'). was published in respect of acquired land on 04.12.1992.

    2(c) The respondent/State took over possession of the acquired land on 21.11.1990.

    2(d) The Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award the compensation at the rate of Rs.65,780/- to the appellant/claimant. The notice of award under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act came to be served on the appellant/claimant on 26.01.1997. The appellant /claimant received the compensation under protest and filed the reference before the Special Land Acquisition Officer praying that a reference be made over to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.16,145.85 ps. Per R (i.e. Rs. 15 per Sq. Ft. and Rs.15,000/- for the mango tree). The total compensation was claimed of Rs.11,77,244/- with statutory benefits. The reference was accordingly made over vide L.A.R. No.68/1998.

    2(e) The reference Court after considering the rival pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and considering the argument advanced on behalf of both the sides, was pleased to dismiss the the reference.

    3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court. The original claimants have preferred this appeal by taking aid of Section 54 of the Act.

    4. Heard Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Mr. S.G. Sangle, learned A.G.P. for the respondent/State.

    5. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the possession of the acquired land was taken on 21.11.1990 by invoking the urgency clause by private negotiation. After lapse of two years, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to pass the award. He submitted that at the relevant point of time, it was mandatory on the S.L.A.O. to pass the award within two ye64ars from the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A.Act. He submitted that the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was Rs.15 per Sq. Ft. The appellants/claimants have also produced sufficient oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim for enhancement. No contra evidence is produced by the State. He submitted that by way of additional evidence, certain sale instances are placed on record. The certified copies of the sale instances are admissible in evidence under Section 51-A of the L.A. Act. He submitted that the appellants/claimants are entitled to get compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.15/- per Sq. Ft.

    6. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submitted that the reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record by the appellants in a proper way and determined the market value of the acquired land at a lower side. He submitted that there was a mango tree in the acquired land and the appellant was getting Rs. 3,000/- per year. The reference Court ought to have awarded the compensation in respect of mango tree of Rs.20,000/-. He submitted that at the relevant point of time, the market value of the acquired land in the adjacent area was in the range of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.20,000 per R as being used for residence purpose.

    7. Mr. Bhandari learned counsel has placed reliance on the following stock of citations in support of his argument.

      (i) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) F

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top