Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the Judgment and Award dated 30 November 1995 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition was for the purpose of setting up the satellite city of New Bombay, with notification under Section 4(1) issued on 3 February 1970. The Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14 per square meter and granted statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 of the Act. The State argued that the respondent-claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the compensation offered under Section 11 was inadequate. The respondent-claimant filed a Cross Objection on 22 June 2011 seeking enhancement, along with an application for condonation of delay. The respondent relied on a decision in First Appeal No.875 of 1985 and connected appeals, where this Court fixed market value at Rs.17.10 per sqm for similar lands. The State opposed the condonation, noting that under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC, cross-objection must be filed within one month from service of notice of appeal, and the delay of over 16 years was unexplained. The Court held that the respondent-claimant did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove inadequacy, but the Reference Court's award was based on comparable cases. However, the cross-objection was filed after the appeal was ready for hearing, and no explanation was given for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's appeal and also dismissed the cross-objection as time-barred.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Market Value Determination - Burden of Proof - Claimant must adduce evidence to prove inadequacy of compensation offered under Section 11 Award - The State contended that the respondent-claimant failed to discharge this burden, but the Court upheld the Reference Court's award of Rs.14 per sqm based on similarity to other appeals where Rs.17.10 per sqm was fixed (Paras 1-3). B) Civil Procedure - Cross-Objection - Limitation - Order 21 Rule 22 CPC - Cross-objection must be filed within one month from service of notice of appeal - Delay of over 16 years (from 2002 to 2011) without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned - Cross-objection dismissed as time-barred (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court correctly fixed market value at Rs.14 per sqm and whether the cross-objection filed after 16 years delay should be condoned.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the State's appeal and also dismissed the cross-objection as time-barred.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on claimant to show inadequacy of compensation
- Condonation of delay for cross-objection
- Application of Order 21 Rule 22 CPC
