Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal filed by Benjamin Pereira against the judgment and award dated 17th November 2006 passed by the Learned District Judge, which dismissed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition involved land bearing survey no. 220/1 of village Colvale, measuring 2,18,820 square meters. A notification under Section 4 was published on 6th December 1996, and an award under Section 11 was made on 12th July 2001, offering compensation at Rs.19 per square meter. The appellant contended that the actual area was 2,13,877 square meters and that the market value should be at least Rs.300 per square meter. Evidence was adduced by the appellant, including examination of his son as constituted attorney and an expert valuer, Mr. Menezes. Reliance was placed on two sale deeds: one dated 22nd August 1997 (Exhibit 30) for a 190 sq. meter plot sold at Rs.184 per sq. meter, and another dated 27th March 1992 (Exhibit 31) for 1950 sq. meter land sold at Rs.77 per sq. meter. The Learned District Judge rejected the reference on the ground that the appellant failed to prove inadequacy of compensation. The appellant's counsel relied on a Division Bench decision in First Appeal No. 101 of 2003, but the court found that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Burden of Proof - Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The appellant sought enhanced compensation for acquired land but failed to prove inadequacy of the award under Section 11 - The court held that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof as the sale deeds relied upon were not comparable or properly established - The reference under Section 18 was rightly dismissed (Paras 2-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving that the compensation offered under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was inadequate.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 17th November 2006 passed by the Learned District Judge is upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in land acquisition reference
- inadequacy of compensation
- reliance on sale deeds
- market value determination
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 122
First Appeal No. 12 of 2007
Shri A.F. Diniz for Appellant, Shri Guru Shirodkar for Respondent No.1, Shri M.S. Sonak for Respondent No.2
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Goa-IDC, 2. The Managing Director, Goa-IDC
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against dismissal of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhanced compensation.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought enhancement of compensation for acquired land from Rs.19 per sq. meter to Rs.300 per sq. meter.
Filing Reason
Appellant was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded under Section 11 and the dismissal of the reference by the District Judge.
Previous Decisions
The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award under Section 11 on 12th July 2001 offering Rs.19 per sq. meter. The Learned District Judge dismissed the reference under Section 18 on 17th November 2006.
Issues
Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving that the compensation offered under Section 11 was inadequate.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the market value should be at least Rs.300 per sq. meter based on sale deeds of comparable lands.
Respondents supported the impugned judgment and award, contending that the appellant failed to prove inadequacy.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the compensation awarded under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was inadequate. The sale deeds relied upon were not sufficiently comparable or established to warrant enhancement.
Judgment Excerpts
The Learned District Judge rejected the reference on the ground that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proving that the compensation offered under the award under section 11 of the said Act was inadequate.
Procedural History
Notification under Section 4 published on 6th December 1996. Award under Section 11 made on 12th July 2001. Reference under Section 18 filed by appellant. Learned District Judge dismissed reference on 17th November 2006. Appellant filed First Appeal No. 12 of 2007 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was dismissed on 10th June 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 11, Section 18
