Bombay High Court Dismisses State Appeal in Land Acquisition Compensation Enhancement Case — Reference Filed Within Limitation as Time Spent on Obtaining Certified Copy Excludable Under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963. Enhancement of Compensation to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. Upheld as Justified Based on Evidence of Sale Instances and Location.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 113
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Chandrapur, filed a first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment dated 30.09.1999 of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1993. The respondent, Vishwas Vijan Gedam, owned 0.09 R of land in Survey No. 651, which was acquired for a public purpose. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17.09.1987, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30.03.1989, granting compensation of Rs. 4,108. The respondent applied for a certified copy of the award on 10.11.1989, received it on 26.06.1992, and filed a reference on 29.06.1992. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. The State appealed, arguing that the reference was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond six weeks from the notice under Section 12(2), and that the enhancement was without evidence. The respondent contended that the time spent in obtaining the certified copy was excludable under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the enhancement was justified. The High Court held that the reference was within limitation, as the period for obtaining the certified copy (from 10.11.1989 to 26.06.1992) was excludable, and the reference was filed within six weeks thereafter. On merits, the Court found that the Reference Court had relied on sale instances and the location of the land, which was in a developed area, and the enhancement to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. was not excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was confirmed.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963 - The respondent filed reference beyond six weeks from notice under Section 12(2) but within six weeks from obtaining certified copy of award - Held that time spent in obtaining certified copy is excludable under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963, and reference was within limitation (Paras 6-8).

B) Land Acquisition - Compensation Enhancement - Market Value - Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. based on evidence of sale instances and location - Held that enhancement was justified and not excessive, as the land was situated in a developed area with potential for non-agricultural use (Paras 9-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reference proceedings filed by the respondent were barred by limitation and whether the enhancement of compensation at Rs. 10 per sq. ft. was justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The impugned order of the Reference Court dated 30.09.1999 in Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1993 is confirmed.

Law Points

  • Limitation for reference under Land Acquisition Act
  • Exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy
  • Section 12(2) of Limitation Act
  • 1963
  • Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 159

First Appeal No. 19 of 2002

2015-03-20

A. S. Chandurkar J.

Shri H. D. Dubey for appellant, Shri Anjan De for respondent

The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Chandrapur

Vishwas Vijan Gedam

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

First appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against enhancement of compensation by Reference Court.

Remedy Sought

Appellant (State) sought setting aside of the Reference Court's order enhancing compensation.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the Reference Court's judgment dated 30.09.1999 in Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1993 on grounds of limitation and lack of evidence for enhancement.

Previous Decisions

Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs. 4,108 on 30.03.1989; Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. on 30.09.1999.

Issues

Whether the reference proceedings were barred by limitation? Whether the enhancement of compensation to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. was justified?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: Reference filed beyond six weeks from notice under Section 12(2); no need for certified copy; enhancement without evidence. Respondent: Time for obtaining certified copy excludable under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act; enhancement based on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The period spent in obtaining a certified copy of the award is excludable under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, for computing limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Enhancement of compensation based on evidence of sale instances and location is justified.

Judgment Excerpts

The period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the award is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the reference. The Reference Court has relied upon the sale instances and the location of the land which was in a developed area. The enhancement to Rs. 10 per sq. ft. cannot be said to be excessive.

Procedural History

Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act published on 17.09.1987; award passed on 30.03.1989; respondent applied for certified copy on 10.11.1989, received on 26.06.1992; reference filed on 29.06.1992; Reference Court allowed enhancement on 30.09.1999; State filed first appeal on 19.02.2002; High Court dismissed appeal on 20.03.2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 12(2), Section 18, Section 23, Section 54
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 12(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Tahsildar's Injunction Order in Section 145 CrPC Proceedings After Closure Due to Civil Suit — Executive Magistrate Cannot Grant Injunction After Dropping Proceedings
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Due to Unexplained Delay in Preventive Detention Case — Live Link Between Grounds and Purpose Snapped. Unexplained delay of 19 days between arrest and detention order renders detention invalid under Article...