Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Sitaram Kadu

Bombay HC12 Jan 2011FA/575/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The first appeal filed by the State against compensation awarded for land acquisition was dismissed without evidence. The court relied on prior judgments from the same region for compensation determination.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal by the State of Maharashtra is dismissed. No order as to costs.

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri. Sitaram Kadu — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

fa575-91

ttm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 1991

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Vs. Sitaram Balaram Kadu .. Respondent

¶8

Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, G.P. for the appellant

¶9

CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 12TH JANUARY, 2011

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned A.G.P. for the appellant.

¶12

None for the respondent.

¶13

This appeal is preferred by appellant State of Maharashtra against judgment and decree dated 28.2.90 passed by Additional District Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Land References no.508 of 1986.

¶14

A few facts of the matter are as under:

¶15

The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification on 3.2.1970 for acquiring respondent / original claimant’s land admeasuring 13560 sq.

¶16

mt. for New Bombay project. After following due process of law, Special

¶17

Land Acquisition Officer declared award dt.30.6.86 and awarded

¶18

fa575-91

¶19

¶20

compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.1/- per sq.m to Rs.3/- per sq.m.

¶21

Being aggrieved by the award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer dt.30.6.1986 respondent original claimant preferred reference u.s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act dt.8.8.86 and claimed enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land @ 15 per sq.m.

¶22

The respondent original claimant relied on previous judgment in Land Acquisition Reference 211 of 1986 vide Exh.15 in which the reference court awarded compensation @ 15 per sq.mt for the land from village Kamothe. Respondent also relied on Land Acquisition Reference No.92 of 1986 Ex.11 and Land Acquisition Reference No. 102 of 1986 Ex.17 in respect of land from village Kamothe. In these two references reference court awarded compensation at Rs.15/- and Rs.12/- per sq.mtr. respectively. Respondent original claimant also examined land valuer at Exh.20. He submitted map at Ex.21 and valuation report at Ex.22. In valuation report, valuer stated that there are two highways namely Bombay Pune Highway at a distance of 4000 m. and Sion Panvel Highway 1600 m. from the acquired land. Jawahar Industrial Estate, Kamothe is about 1280 m. while MIDC Industrial Estate is about 7000 m. and Panvel Industrial estate is about 2800 m. away from the land under reference.

¶23

Considering these facts, reference court awarded compensation in respect of acquired land at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr.

¶24

fa575-91

¶25

¶26

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dt.28.02.1990 passed by the reference court, the State preferred this appeal.

¶27

In the present appeal, the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of appellant submits that reference court erred in coming to the conclusion that respondent original claimant is entitled to compensation in respect of acquired land at Rs.15 per sq.m. on the basis of L.A.R. No.211 of 1986 Ex.15 L.A.R. 92 of 1986 Ex.11 and L.A.R. No.102 of 1986 Ex.17.

¶28

The learned A.G.P. submits that the learned Judge has committed an error in accepting evidence of Mr.Narayan Kulkarni Ex.20. It ought to have noted that Narayan Kulkarni visited the land as valuer much later than the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶29

On these submissions, the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge, Raigad at Alibag is liable to be set aside.

¶30

I have gone through the record and proceedings of the present case. It is admitted fact that no one entered into the witness box on behalf of the appellant State of Maharashtra.

¶31

In the present case, respondent original claimant produced certified copies of judgment in L.R. No.211 of 1986, 92 of 1986 and 102 of 1986. In all these L.A.R.S lands were involved from some village i.e. Kamothe. In all these L.A.R.’s reference court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.15 per sq.m. Even the valuer in his report explained the nearby situation of

¶32

fa575-91

¶33

¶34

the acquired land. The acquired land is a distance of 4000 m. from Bombay Pune Highway and 1600 m from Sion Panvel Highway.

¶35

Apex court in the case of Bhim Singh and others etc. vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5188 held that determination of compensation on basis of earlier judgments is best method. Head note A of that authority reads thus:

¶36

“ – –

¶37

Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.23 Compensation –

¶38

Determination of, on basis of earlier judgments Plea that High Court erred in not taking sale instances into account while fixing –

¶39

compensation Compensation already fixed by High Court in earlier proceedings and Supreme Court in one such proceeding has –

¶40

already approved rate fixed Best method would be to look at the –

¶41

earlier Judgments and Awards and not sale instances High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments.”

¶42

Considering the Exhibits 15, 11 and 17, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by reference court.

¶43

In view of the above mentioned facts, first appeal by the State of Maharashtra is dismissed.

¶44

No order as to costs.

¶45

(K.K. TATED, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Sitaram Kadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Sitaram Kadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bright Fund Management Co. Vs the Lowell'Jay Aldehyde Co.

M/S.Bright Fund Manage. Co. Vs Royal Agro and Auto Pvt.LTDand Anr.

M/S.Industrial Detergents Vs M/S.Premier Laboratories and Ors.

Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Vs the Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayanti K. Nandu Prop. of J.K. Corporation Vs Ritesh Khanna

Amritlal Chemuax Ltd., Vs M/S.Narendra Silk Mills.