Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, a government undertaking, filed multiple writ petitions challenging the awards passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which enhanced the compensation for lands acquired for the Majalgaon irrigation project. The lands were situated in Village Nandur, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. The respondents were the State of Maharashtra and various landowners whose lands were acquired. The petitioner contended that the Reference Court had erred in enhancing the compensation without proper evidence and that the awards were excessive. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the Reference Court had considered the evidence on record, including the sale instances and the nature of the land, and had passed reasoned awards. The court noted that the petitioner had not pointed out any perversity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned awards. The court held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it would not reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference Court - Enhanced Compensation - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The petitioner, a government corporation, challenged the awards of the Reference Court enhancing compensation for lands acquired for irrigation project. The court held that the Reference Court had considered the evidence and passed reasoned awards, and the High Court in writ jurisdiction would not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or without jurisdiction. Held that no interference is warranted (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should interfere with the awards passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, enhancing compensation for acquired lands.
Final Decision
All writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned awards of the Reference Court are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Reference Court
- Enhanced Compensation
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Interference with Findings of Fact
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 6
Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2014 with connected matters
Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad
The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Collector Beed, (Land Acquisition) Beed and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging awards of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enhancing compensation for land acquisition.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Reference Court awards enhancing compensation for lands acquired for the Majalgaon irrigation project.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation without proper evidence and that the awards were excessive.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court had passed awards enhancing compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues
Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction should interfere with the Reference Court's awards enhancing compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Reference Court had enhanced compensation without proper evidence and that the awards were excessive.
The respondents supported the awards, contending that the Reference Court had considered the evidence and passed reasoned orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The Reference Court had considered the evidence and passed reasoned awards, and no interference is warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The Reference Court has considered the evidence on record and has passed reasoned awards.
The petitioner has not pointed out any perversity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned awards.
In exercise of writ jurisdiction, this court would not reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the awards of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which enhanced compensation for lands acquired for the Majalgaon irrigation project. The court heard the matters together and dismissed all petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18
