Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose out of acquisition of agricultural lands situated at village Ravangaon, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded, for the Lendi Project, a major irrigation dam. The landowners, who were the appellants in the High Court, had their lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4 was published on 26 March 1992, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 12 on 16 June 1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer classified the acquired lands into categories B, C and D with compensation of Rs.32,000 per hectare for dry land category B, Rs.32,500 for dry land category C, and Rs.33,000 for Bagayat land category D. The claimants, not satisfied with the award, sought references under Section 18 of the Act claiming higher compensation, ranging from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,50,000 per hectare depending on whether they considered the land irrigated or dry. The Reference Court, by a common judgment and award dated 23 November 1995, dismissed all the references. It discarded the sale instances from village Ravangaon (Exh.23 and 24) as post-notification, and the sale instances from village Gonegaon (Exh.20 and 21) on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence about distance between the acquired lands and the lands under the sale deeds. The claimants, aggrieved, preferred first appeals before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act. The appellants contended that the Reference Court committed a grave error in discarding the sale instances from the same village merely because they were of the same period as the notification, and in discarding the Gonegaon sale instances for lack of distance evidence. They argued that they had produced cogent oral and documentary evidence, and that the market value was Rs.75,000 per hectare for irrigated land and Rs.50,000 per hectare for dry land. They further argued that a reference under Section 18 is not an appeal, and that material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be used unless produced and proved; they relied on Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona. They also relied on Cement Corporation of India v. Purya to argue that certified copies of sale instances are admissible in evidence under Section 51A without examining the vendor or vendee. They further placed reliance on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab for the proposition that when land is compulsorily taken, the owner is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality has fetched in a bona fide transaction. The respondents, including the State through the District Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and the acquiring body, supported the findings of the Reference Court and submitted that the Reference Court rightly discarded the sale instances and dismissed the references. The High Court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 6 December 2021, delivering it on 1 April 2022. However, the provided judgment text ends during the respondents' submissions, and the final analysis, findings and operative order of the High Court are not available in the extract. Consequently, the ultimate outcome of the appeals cannot be determined from the text.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Market Value Determination - Comparable Sale Instances - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 18, 23 - Reference Court discarded sale instances from village Ravangaon as post-notification under Section 4 and from Gonegaon due to lack of evidence of distance; appellants argued these were erroneously rejected without proper reasoning (Paras 2(d), 4, 5). B) Evidence - Admissibility of Certified Copies of Sale Deeds - Certified copies admissible without examining vendor or vendee - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 51A - Appellants relied on certified copies of sale instances and contended that the Reference Court wrongly required examination of vendor/vendee; reliance placed on Cement Corporation of India v. Purya (Paras 7). C) Land Acquisition - Principle of Highest Value in Bona Fide Transactions - Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - When land is compulsorily taken away, landowner is entitled to highest value that similar land in locality has fetched in a bona fide transaction; Mehrawal Khewaji Trust case discussed (Para 8). D) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 Not an Appeal - Procedural Nature - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 - Reference under Section 18 is not an appeal; material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be relied upon unless produced and proved; reliance on Chimanlal Hargovinddas case (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court erred in discarding sale instances produced by claimants and in dismissing references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; whether certified copies of sale deeds are admissible in evidence without examining vendor or vendee; and whether claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation based on comparable sale deeds.
Law Points
- Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal
- Certified copies of sale deeds are admissible under Section 51A
- Landowner entitled to highest value fetched by similar land in locality in bona fide transaction
- Sale instances from same village not to be discarded merely for being post-notification without evaluating bona fides and comparability
- Material relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer cannot be used unless produced and proved
