Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Madan Bakshi Rathod, was the owner of land bearing Survey No.55/1-E, ad-measuring 2H and 12 Rs., situated at Pimpri Dhangar, Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldana. A notification for acquisition of this land was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at Rs. 14,000 per hectare by Award dated 20.4.1988. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.28 of 1989. The Reference Court, by judgment and order dated 18.3.1996, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 42,000 per hectare, relying on a sale instance dated 10.5.1979 from Appendix A of the Award, which showed a sale of land at Rs. 16,129 per acre. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare and appealed to the High Court. The appellant argued that the Reference Court used the sale instance without giving him an opportunity to prove that the instance was of dry land, not irrigated land. The High Court, per R. K. Deshpande, J., heard the appeal. The Court noted that the sale instance was taken from Appendix A without providing the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence on the nature of the land. The Court referred to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon and anr. vs. Bhagwat Vithal, reported in 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 308, which held that when the Land Acquisition Officer relies on a sale instance without giving the claimant an opportunity to lead evidence, the matter should be remanded. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Reference Court, and remanded the matter for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence on the nature of the land in the sale instance. The Court directed that the Reference Court shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Sale Instance - Opportunity to Lead Evidence - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 18, 23 - The claimant challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, which relied on a sale instance from Appendix A of the Award without allowing the claimant to prove that the instance was of dry land. The High Court held that the claimant must be given an opportunity to lead evidence on the nature of the land, and remanded the matter for fresh determination. (Paras 1-5) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Enhancement - Claim of Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - The claimant sought enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare, but the Reference Court awarded only Rs. 42,000 per hectare. The High Court set aside the award and remanded the case for fresh consideration after allowing the claimant to lead evidence. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court erred in determining compensation based on a sale instance without giving the claimant an opportunity to establish that the sale instance was of dry land, and whether the compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 18.3.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Khamgaon in Land Acquisition Case No.28 of 1989 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence on the nature of the land in the sale instance. The Reference Court shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Section 23
- Compensation determination
- Sale instance
- Opportunity to lead evidence
- Remand
