This case addressed appeals against a Reference Court's order enhancing compensation for land acquired for industrial purposes. The court held that the State failed to prove the award was excessive and dismissed all appeals.
All appeals preferred by the State and the Claimants were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2007
The State of Maharashtra ) (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer ) No.1, Nashik) )...Appellant
versus
)..Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 216 TO 220 OF 1995 & 41 OF 1997
Ms. Geeta Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. Mr. P.N. Joshi for the Claimants.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
J.P. DEVADHAR, J.
Judgment reserved on : December 10, 2007 Judgment delivered on: January 17, 2008
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
First Appeal Nos. 215 to 220 of 1995 have been preferred by the State while First Appeal No. 41 of 1997 has been preferred by
the claimants against the same judgment of the Reference Court dated 21st April, 1994. Thus, it will be appropriate to dispose of these appeals
by a common judgment since they arise from the same judgment.
-2-
under.
| ---- ---- L.R ---- ---- |
----------- . No. ----------- |
--------------- S.No. --------------- |
---------------------- Area acquired ---------------------- |
------------------------ Rate awarde by SLAO ------------------------ |
------------------- d Amount awarded ------------------- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |
165/87 |
235 of Pathardi |
17200 sq.mtr. | Rs. 1.50 nps. | 25,800/- |
| 2. |
166/87 |
38 of Ambad |
430000 “ | Rs. 3.60 nps. | 1,54,800/- |
| 3. |
167/87 |
40 of Ambad. |
16100 “ | Rs. 3.60 nps. | 66,635/- |
| 4. |
168/87 |
294 of Pathardi |
100000 “ | Rs. 4.00 nps. | 4,00,000/- |
| 5. |
169/87 |
293/1 of Paghardi |
117200 |
Rs. 4.00 nps | 4,68,800/- |
-36. 170/87 293/2 of 12400 “ 49,600/292 10500 2/- 21,000/-
the claimants was much in excess of what ought to have been awarded to them, challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Reference Court dated 21st April, 1994, filed Appeal Nos. 215 to 220of 1995. The claimants dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Reference Court filed First Appeal No. 41 of 1997 for enhancement of the amount to the claimed amount of Rs. 50/- per sq.mtr.
-4-
-5-
would not create any right or would not provide substantive evidence for determination of compensation. Both the sale instances i.e. Exhibits-31 and 32 were registered on 11th April, 1972 which is subsequent to the date of the registration but still the learned Reference Court in absence of any other direct evidence on record granted reasonable compensation to the claimants. Even under these two exhibits, the lands were sold at the rate of Rs. 8.54 and Rs. 9.12 per sq.mtr respectively while the trial Court has already granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.70 to Rs. 9.70 depending upon the location of the land in question. The judgment of this Court in relation to CIDCO project would again be not a direct evidence in regard to the matters in dispute. Section 4 notification was issued in the year 1974 i.e. nearly three years subsequent to the date of the notification in the present case. Even in that case the High Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 13/- to Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. which itself is a sufficient indication of the fact that the discretion exercised by the learned Reference Court is not vitiated either in law or on the basis of the evidence on record.
-6-
hardly has a justification for even preferring the present appeals. The State chose not to lead any evidence before the Reference Court. Even no proper suggestions were made during cross-examination to the claimants witnesses who appeared in the witness box. Witness No.1, who was one of the claimants had stated about the valuation of the land , location and its potential. She had specifically referred to the CIDCO project and acquisition of the acquired lands. In her statement, it was stated that Government was recovering Rs. 40/- to Rs. 180/- per sq.mtr. from the Industries which are set up in the industrial area. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was made to this witness in regard to the location of the land or that the prices or that the compensation claimed was unreasonable. In fact, even in the crossexamination this witness stated that she was claiming Rs. 50/- per sq.mtr. in view of the increase in value of the land. Sureshchandra Maniklal Bhatewara, Witness No.2, appeared on behalf of the claimants proved Exhibits-31 and 32. The oral and documentary evidence proved by the claimants support to some extent the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. The Reference Court was entitled to exercise its discretion while keeping in mind the various factors. The amount awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper and is in consonance with the statutory principles indicated in Section 33 (5) of
-7-
the MIDC Act read with Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act.
CHIEF JUSTICE
J.P. DEVADHAR, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court erred in law or on appreciation of evidence while enhancing compensation for land acquisition.
Whether the State established that the award was excessive before challenging the judgment in appeal.
Whether the agreement to sell documents constituted substantive evidence for determining higher compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
First Appeal No. 882 of 1988 and othersReferred¶29
4 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1
Laxmibai Vithal Wagh
Muktabai Vithal Wagh
SWATANTER KUMAR
J.P. DEVADHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
