Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a first appeal filed by the claimants (Suwalal, Anilkumar, and the legal representatives of Tarachand Dagdulal Kotecha) against the judgment and award passed by the reference court (2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambejogai) in L.A.R. No. 68 of 1998. The land admeasuring 71 R from survey No.151 at village Nandur Ghat, Taluka Kaij, District Beed, owned and possessed by the claimants, was acquired for the purpose of a 33 KV substation of M.S.E.B. at Nandur Ghat. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 04.12.1992, and possession was taken over on 21.11.1990. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.65,780/-. The notice of award under Section 12(2) was served on the claimants on 26.01.1997. The claimants received the compensation under protest and filed a reference seeking enhancement to Rs.16,145.85 per R (i.e., Rs.15 per sq. ft. and Rs.15,000 for a mango tree), totaling Rs.11,77,244/- with statutory benefits. The reference court dismissed the reference. The legal issues were whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation and whether they had discharged the burden of proof. The claimants argued that the compensation was inadequate, while the State contended that the award was just and proper. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the claimants failed to produce any sale instances or expert evidence to prove the market value. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the claimants to show that the compensation awarded is inadequate, and they failed to discharge that burden. The decision was to dismiss the appeal and confirm the reference court's order. The court also disposed of the civil application.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Market Value - Burden of Proof - The claimants sought enhancement of compensation for land acquired for a substation, but failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the market value claimed. The reference court dismissed the reference, and the High Court upheld the decision, holding that the claimants did not discharge the burden of proof to show that the awarded compensation was inadequate. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Dismissal for Lack of Evidence - The reference court correctly dismissed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the claimants did not produce any sale instances or expert evidence to support their claim for higher compensation. The High Court affirmed that mere assertion without proof cannot justify enhancement. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land beyond the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court is confirmed. Civil Application No. 3732 of 2019 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Market Value
- Burden of Proof
- Reference Court
- Section 4 Notification
- Section 12(2) Notice
- Section 18 Reference
