Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohan Baksi Rathod, owned land bearing Survey No.55/1-G admeasuring 2 hectares and 13 ares situated at Pimpri Dhangar, Taluka Khamgaon, District Buldhana. The State of Maharashtra issued a notification for acquisition of this land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 20.4.1988 determining compensation at Rs.14,000/- per hectare, totaling Rs.56,251.16. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.26 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 in respect of Survey No.13/3-A of the same village, sold at Rs.16,129/- per acre. The appellant claimed compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The appellant argued that the Reference Court used the sale instance from Appendix A of the Award without giving him an opportunity to prove that the instance was for dry land, not irrigated land. The appellant contended that if the instance was for dry land, then based on the judgment of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon and anr. vs. Bhagwat, 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 308, the compensation should be higher. The High Court found that the Reference Court had not provided the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence on the nature of the land in the sale instance. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh decision, directing that both parties be given an opportunity to lead evidence. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Sale Instance - The Reference Court relied on a sale instance dated 10.5.1979 from Appendix A of the Award without providing the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence to show that the instance was for dry land, not irrigated land. The High Court held that this was improper and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 4-5) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Deduction for Development - The High Court noted that the deduction for development cannot be applied mechanically and must be based on evidence. The Court directed the Reference Court to decide the matter afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court erred in relying on a sale instance of irrigated land without giving the appellant an opportunity to prove that the instance pertained to dry land, and whether the compensation awarded was inadequate.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Khamgaon in Land Acquisition Case No.26 of 1989 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh decision after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Section 23
- Section 4
- compensation determination
- sale instance
- irrigated vs dry land
- deduction for development
- opportunity to lead evidence
- reference court
- enhancement of compensation
