Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 424
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J
The State of Maharashtra, Through its District Collector, Aurangabad – Appellant
Versus
Bhimdeo s/o Rattu Rathod Age: 28 years – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3420 OF 2018 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3421 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B. V. Virdhe
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas G. Kodale, h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale
The burden of proof for enhanced compensation in land acquisition cases lies on claimants, and failure to provide adequate evidence results in dismissal of claims.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 23 - Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation based on inadequate evidence - Claimants did not prove higher market value - Burden of proof lies on claimants to show that the compensation awarded is inadequate - Claims dismissed for lack of substantiating evidence. (Paras 11, 12, 19, 28)
(B) Market Value Determination - The court emphasized that mere sale instances post-notification cannot be the sole basis for deriving compensation values, and any expert report must be based on verifiable evidence and appropriately scrutinized before acceptance. (Paras 10, 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
Land acquired for irrigation; disputes over compensation valuation and burden of proof on claimants were central to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the Reference Court erred by enhancing compensation without sufficient evidence supporting the claim, resulting in the dismissal of claims for compensation enhancement.
Issues: Addressed the adequacy of evidence presented by claimants to justify compensation enhancement by the Reference Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that the onus lies on claimants to demonstrate that the compensation awarded is insufficient, requiring proper evidence to substantiate claims.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeals concern compensation claims related to land acquisition. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. appellants argue insufficient evidence was provided by claimants to justify compensation increase. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's duty is to closely scrutinize evidence presented by claimants. (Para 8) |
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.
| Gat Number | Acquired Area |
| 301 | 1 H 56 R |
| 301 | 1 H 98 R |
| 301 | 2 H 00 R |
3) Date of Notification U/s. 4 of L.A. Act Date: 31-7-1995 published in Mah. Gov. Gazette
4) Date of Notice U/s.4 of L.A. Act received Date: 02-4-1998 by the claimants.
5) Date of possession of the land taken Date: 09-4-1996 by the Ex. Engg. by private negotiation
6) Date of Award U/sec. 11 Date 25-7-2000 7) Date on which Notice of the award u/s. Date: 22-1-2001 12(2) received by the claimants.
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 t
