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

2011 Supreme(SC) 1139

2011 (9) SCC 325
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V.RAVEENDRAN
Shri Ambya Kalya Mhatre (d) Through legal heirs & Ors. ... Appellants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO...7784...... OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.20741 of 2009]

Headnote:A) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.6 R.17, O.7 R.7, LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.13, S.18, S.19, S.23, S.3(a):- This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court wherein the court had allowed the appeal of the State Government against the order of reference court enhancing the compensation. The main ground on which the High Court has passed the order is that the legal heirs of the original climant had filed the application for enhancement of the compensation subsequently claiming compensation not only for land but also for trees. The fallowing questions raise out of the appeal

       (i) Whether in a reference made to the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act, the land owner is barred from amending the amount claimed in the reference application and seeking higher compensation; and even if he could seek amendment, whether such application should be made within the period of limitation mentioned in section 18 of the Act?

       (ii) Where the landowner has sought increase in compensation for only the land, in the application under section 18 of the Act, whether he can seek increase in compensation for the trees or structures also, before the Reference Court?

       (iii) Where compensation is awarded for the land, whether no compensation can be awarded for trees or well separately?

       All these questions were answered in favour of the appellant and it was held that scheme of Section 18 is that the claimant is not required to mention any amount of compensation or enhancement sought and the limitation is only for the purpose of making an application for reference, but not for qunaitfying the compensation on his own or in compliance with the special Maharashtra law which requires court fees payment. Similarly the view of the High Court that once compensation for land is decided, no further compensation for trees thereon can be sought was held not correct.

       Appeals allowed accordingly.

       

JUDGMENT

R.V.RAVEENDRAN

1. Leave granted. Lands belonging to Ambya Kalya Mhatre (`A.K.Mhatre' for short, now represented by his LRs.) situated at Dapoli village, Panvel taluk, Raigad district, bearing Sy. Nos.89/1, 85/1, 27/1, 41/1B, 41/1A, 152/3, 155/7, 18/7, 89/3, 23/2 and 99/1 in all measuring 1.73.6 Hectares (17360 sq.m.) with a large number of fruit bearing trees and a well therein, were acquired for New Bombay project in pursuance of preliminary notification dated 3.2.1970 (read with corrigendum dated 5.9.1970) and final notification dated 29.7.1979.

2. The special Land Acquisition Officer (for short `the Collector') awarded the following compensation by award dated 4.7.1986:

3. Possession of the land was taken on 9.9.1986. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, A.K.Mhatre made an application dated 10.11.1986 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act' for short) to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (also referred as `Collector' or `LAO') seeking a reference to a District Court for enhancement of compensation by ` 90,273/- in regard to the acquired lands and paid a court fee of ` 1610/- in regard to the increase demanded. In pursuance of the said request, a reference was made to the Civil Court by the LAO on 25.11.1986. During the pendency of the reference before the reference court, A.K. Mhatre died and his legal representatives came on record on 30.9.1988.

4. The appellants made an application on 13.9.1990 before the Reference Court seeking following amendments to the application for reference :

(i) As against the compensation of ` 24,898.32 for the entire land (at the rate ` 6500, ` 7000 and ` 7500 per acre for different kinds of land) awarded by the LAO, and the compensation claimed at the rate of ` 50,000/- per acre in regard to some of the lands, in the application seeking reference, the appellants sought compensation of ` 3,47,200/- for the acquired lands measuring 17360 sq.m. (at the rate of Rs.20 per sq.m.) that is an increase of ` 3,22,302/-.

(ii) As against the compensation of ` 83,629/- awarded for the trees, the appellants sought ` 10,48,400/-, that is an increase of ` 9,64,771/-. (The appellant had not sought any increase in regard to trees in the application for reference).

(iii) As against the compensation of ` 500/- awarded for the well, the appellants sought ` 50,000/-, that is an increase of ` 49,500/- (Note: The appellant had not sought any increase in regard to the well in the application seeking reference). The appellants thus sought in all `43,83,959/- towards additional compensation with solatium and additional amount.

5. The appellants also paid the additional court fee for the increase in the claim. The reason given in the application for amendment seeking increase was that A.K. Mhatre was not then in a position to pay the court fee on a higher claim, and had therefore restricted the claim for a lesser amount in the application for reference.

6. The said application for amendment was allowed by the Reference Court on 19.9.1990 and the claims in the reference application were modified as per the amendment application. After evidence, the Reference Court by award dated 2.5.1991, determined the compensation as ` 1,21,520/- (at ` 7/- per sq.m.) for the land, ` 4,46,600/- for the trees and ` 2,000/- for the well, with statutory benefits. This works out to an increase of `96,631/- for the land, ` 3,62,971/- for the trees and ` 1500/- for the well.

7. Both sides were aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court. The appellants filed Ap. No.104/1992 seeking further increase and the LAO filed FA No.226/1994 challenging the increase. The appeals came up for hearing on different dates before the High Court of Bombay.

8. The appeal filed by the appellants came up for hearing first. On 4.3.2003, the said appeal was allowed in part and the compensation in regard to the land was increased to `10 per sq. m., by following its earlier decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Tulsiram K




























































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