Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Surendranath Sripad Sinai Dessai, was the owner/co-owner of land measuring about 25,315 sq. metres in Pernem village, Goa, which was acquired for the construction of the Konkan Railway's new broad gauge line. The acquisition was part of a larger area of 4,48,613 sq. metres acquired via notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on 21 October 1991. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.15 per sq. metre for paddy land and Rs.18 per sq. metre for mixed garden land by award dated 17 May 1994. Dissatisfied, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was heard as L.A.C. No.129/1996. Before the Reference Court, the appellant examined himself and two other witnesses, including an expert, but did not produce any sale deeds or other awards in evidence. The learned IInd Additional District Judge, Panaji, by judgment/award dated 28 October 2003, rejected the reference, holding that the appellant failed to make out a case for enhancement. In appeal, the appellant's senior counsel argued for remand to allow production of documents, including an award dated 24 September 1999 in L.A.C. No.117/1997, and for both parties to lead further evidence. The High Court noted that the appellant had sought adjournments on 28 October 1999 and 4 December 1999 for production of documents, and issues were settled on 21 December 2000. The appellant later filed an application to produce the award, but the court found that the appellant had ample opportunity to produce evidence and failed to do so. The court held that the burden of proof was on the appellant to establish entitlement to higher compensation, and since no evidence was produced, the appeal was dismissed. The court also rejected the request for remand, stating that remand is not automatic and the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for failure to produce evidence earlier.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Enhancement of Compensation - Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Burden of Proof - The applicant sought enhanced compensation for land acquired for Konkan Railway. The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof by not producing relevant sale deeds or awards in evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no case for enhancement was made out. (Paras 2-5) B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Failure to Produce Evidence - The applicant sought remand to produce additional evidence. The court held that remand is not automatic and the applicant had ample opportunity to produce evidence but failed to do so. The application for remand was rejected. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant was entitled to enhanced compensation for acquired land and whether the case should be remanded for retrial to allow production of additional evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment/award dated 28 October 2003 of the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Panaji, rejecting the reference, is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on claimant for enhancement
- Remand not automatic for failure to produce evidence
- Section 18 Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
