Allowed

State of Maharashtra(Thorugh Spl.Land Acq.Officer. v. Balram Parshuram Patil.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2005FA/516/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside a Reference Court order enhancing land compensation. The court held the lower court erred in relying solely on arithmetic calculations from earlier judgments without analysing the comparability of the land parcels.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award of the Reference Court setting higher compensation was set aside, and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was restored.

State of Maharashtra(Thorugh Spl.Land Acq.Officer. Vs Balram… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 516 OF 1990

¶5

The State of Maharashtra (Through The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro ) Centre No.IV, Panvel

¶6

) ) ) ...Appellant.

¶7

V/s

¶8

Shri Balaram Parshuram Patil,) Adult, R/o. Rohinjan, Tal. ) Panvel. ---

¶9

) ...Respondent.

¶10

Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. S.P. Thorat for the respondent. ---

¶12

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & V. M. KANADE, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 19th August, 2005.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. S KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

¶15

Heard the learned advocate for the parties.

¶16

Perused the records.

¶17

2.	The	app	ellant c	hallenges	the	Judgm	ent and	Order
dated	04/05/	1989	passed	by the		Civil	Judge,	Senior
Division,		Raigad,	Alibag	whereby		the	reference	filed
by res	pondent	under	section	18	of	the	Land	Acquisition

¶18

Act, 1894 has been allowed and the compensation has

¶19

been enhanced from Rs 15,097/- to Rs 95,600/-.

¶20

:2:

¶21

The land in question belonging to the respondent was sought to be acquired by issuing notification under section 4 of the said Act on 03/02/1970 and an award was passed after hearing the party on 01/11/1985. The possession of the land was taken over by the appellant on 01/11/1985 on payment of compensation which was accepted by the respondent

¶22

under protest and he preferred an application under

¶23

section 18 for enhancement of the same.

¶24

The Reference Court, after allowing the parties to

¶25

lead evidence, on consideration thereof, enhanced the

¶26

compensation as stated above.

¶27

5.	The	learned	Assistant Governme	nt Pleader ap	pearing
for	the	appellant	while assailing	the im	pugned
judgment	stated	that	the Reference	Court while	rightly
rejected	the	evi	dence produced by	the respondent	in
the	form	of sale	deeds, but erred	in relying upon	the
decisions	in	earlier	Reference Application	Nos. 31	of
1986	and	309	of 1987 without	ascertaining as	to
whether	the	land	which was the	subject matter	of
acquisition		under	those proceedings	was com	parable

¶28

with the land in question or not and whether both the

¶29

pieces of land were similar in nature.

¶30

:3:

¶31

6.	Upon heari	ng the	learned		Assistant	Gove	rnment
Pleader	for the	appellant	and	on	perusal	of	the
record,	the only	point	which	arises	for	consid	eration
is wh	ether the	Reference	Court	w	as just	ified	in
enhancing	the co	mpensation	at	the	rate	it	has
enhanced,	solely on	the bas	is of	the	judgments	of	the
Reference	Court in	LAR No.31	of	1986	and 309	of	1987,

¶32

without considering the issue of comparability of the

¶33

land?

¶34

7.	A	ba	re perusal	of	the im	pugn	ed	judgme	nt	discloses
that	the	R	eference C	ourt,	after taki	ng	no	te	of	the
judgments	pa	ssed	in LAR	No.	31 of	19	86	and	309	of
1987	whe	rein	compens	ation	was awa	rded		at		different
rates	from	Rs	8/- per	sq.	meters	to	Rs	15/-	per	sq.
meter	de	pending	upon	differe	nt classes		of	land		which
was	acq	uired,	and re	ferring	to th	e	d	escription	of	the
land	in	ques	tion, has	arri	ved at	the		conclusion		that
it	would	be	just	and	appropriate	to		determ	ine	the
market	value	of	the land	in	question	at		the rate		of Rs
8/-	per	sq.	meter.		Undoubtedly,	para		16	of	the
impugned		judgm	ent deal	s	with	the		location		and
description	of	the	land	in	question	whi	ch	has	been	the

¶35

:4:

¶36

subject	matter of the acquisition in the case in	hand.
However,	there is no reference to the description	of
the l	and which was the subject matter of	the
acquisition	proceedings in cases before the R	eference
Court	bearing LAR No. 31 of 1986 and 309 of	1987.
The	Apex Court in Cement Corporation of India	Ltd.
vs.	Purya and others etc. etc. reported in 2004	AIR
SCW	5534 has clearly laid down the law on the	point
that	the Reference Court can certainly take note	of
the sa	le instances as well as the earlier judgments	in
relation	to the land in the locality as well as	even
in	different locality for ascertaining the	market
value	of the land under consideration provided	that
the	Reference Court analyses the comparability	between
the	land under consideration with the land which	was
the	subject matter of the sale deeds or the	earlier
judgments.	The procedure of merely accepting	the
certified	copy of the sale deed or of the judgmen	t in
earlier	case and based thereon with an arit	hmetical
calculation	arriving at the market value of the	land
under	consideration has been condemned by the	Apex
Court	while insisting for necessity of considering	the
evidentiary	value of such evidence in the form	of
either	sale deeds or earlier judgments and, in	that
regard, Court	it has clearly observed that the R has to take into consideration the nature of	eference the

¶37

:5:

¶38

land	and	variou	s other fa	ctors in relation to	the	land
in	ques	tion	and compa	re the same with t	he	subject
matter	of	the	sale deeds	or judgments which	are	sought
to	be	relied	upon.	Plain reading of the		impugned
judgment,		as	already	observed earlier,		clearly
discloses		the	failure on	the part of the		Reference
Court		to u	ndertake any	such exercise before		arriving
at	the	find	ing that the	market value of the	land	in
question		would	be Rs 8/-	per sq. meter.		Obviously,
therefore,		the	Reference	Court by mere	a	rithmetical
calculation		has	held the	market value of the	land	in
question	t	o be	Rs 8/-	per sq. meter		without
considerin	g	as	to whether	the land in questio	n c	an be
in	any	manne	r comparable	with the land which	was	the
subject		matter	of the proce	edings in LAR No.	309	of
1987	a	nd 31	of 1986.	Clearly, the impugned		judgment
is	in	contrave	ntion of the	law laid down by	the	Apex
Court	in	tha	t regard	and, therefore,	cannot	be
sustained		and	is liable	to be quashed and	set	aside

¶39

while restoring the amount of compensation which was

¶40

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶41

8.	For	the re	aso	ns stated	a	bove,	therefore,	point for
determinat	ion	formulated		above	is	ans	wered	in negative
and	the	appeal	is	allowed	and	the	impugned	award is
hereby	set	aside		while	resto	ring	the	compensation

¶42

:6:

¶43

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under the

¶44

first award. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

(R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

¶46

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

State of Maharashtra(Thorugh Spl.Land Acq.Officer. v. Balram Parshuram Patil.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra(Thorugh Spl.Land Acq.Officer. v. Balram Parshuram Patil.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Harbansing Ghattarsingh and Another Vs Shri Pradeep B. Shingore

Kaluram Hawaba Potale and Otehrs Vs the State of Maharasthsra

Maruti Laxman Chorghe ( Deceased ) Vs the Special Land Acquistion Officer,Raigad

The State of Maharashtra Vs Smt. Anandibai Vasantrao Lonkar

Vidya Sharad Urankar Vs the Special Land Acquision Officer (Mhada) and Ors.

M/S.Khodiyar Builders Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.