Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a land acquisition matter under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant, originally Mr. Sazu R. S. Nadkarni (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), owned plot no. 137 (part 2) measuring 16,950 square metres at Village Xelpem, Sanguem Taluka, Goa. The land was acquired for the Selaulim Irrigation Project via notification dated 17.11.1971 under Section 4 of the Act, and an award under Section 11 was passed on 24.03.1975. The appellant applied under Section 28-A for redetermination of compensation on 07.05.1996, claiming entitlement to Re.1 per square metre based on a final order dated 12.10.1990 passed by the District Judge in related proceedings. The Special Land Acquisition Officer partly allowed the application by award dated 22.01.1996. Dissatisfied, the appellant sought a reference under Section 28-A(3), which was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No.7/1997 before the District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao. The reference court framed issues and, by judgment and award dated 28.02.2003, rejected the reference, holding that the appellant failed to prove entitlement to the claimed rate. The appellant appealed to the High Court in First Appeal No.133 of 2003, which was allowed and remanded on 06.10.2006 for fresh decision. On remand, the reference court again framed issues and, by the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2003 (the same date as the original), again rejected the reference. The present appeal, First Appeal No.132 of 2007, challenges this judgment. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant was entitled to Re.1 per sq.mt. based on the earlier award. The respondents' counsel contended that the appellant failed to prove comparability. The High Court examined the record and found that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the acquired land was similar in nature, location, or potential to the land covered by the previous award. The court noted that the burden of proof lay on the appellant under Section 28-A, and he failed to discharge it. The High Court also observed that the reference court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the reference court's decision. The judgment was delivered on 05.07.2023 by Justice M. S. Karnik.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Burden of Proof - The appellant sought redetermination of compensation at Re.1 per sq.mt. based on a previous award. The reference court held that the appellant failed to prove that the acquired land was comparable to the land in the previous award. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the appellant did not adduce evidence to establish similarity in location, quality, or potential. Held that the burden lies on the claimant to prove entitlement to enhanced compensation under Section 28-A (Paras 2-10). B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 28-A(3) - Scope - The reference under Section 28-A(3) is limited to the application made under Section 28-A(1). The court cannot go beyond the claim made in the application. In this case, the appellant's application sought compensation at Re.1 per sq.mt., and the reference court correctly confined itself to that claim. Held that the reference court's jurisdiction is circumscribed by the application (Paras 2-6). C) Land Acquisition - Finality of Award - Section 28-A(3) - The award under Section 28-A(3) is final subject to appeal. The High Court, in an earlier round, remanded the matter for fresh decision. On remand, the reference court again rejected the claim. The High Court found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal. Held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Re.1 per square metre for the acquired land under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on a previous award of the District Judge.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the reference court's judgment and award dated 28.02.2003 rejecting the reference.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on claimant under Section 28-A
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Requirement of comparability of land for enhanced compensation
- Scope of reference under Section 28-A(3)
- Finality of award under Section 28-A(3) subject to appeal
