Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohd. Mustak Mohamad Ismail, was the owner of land admeasuring 0.44 R out of Gat No. 1630 at village Shirala, Amravati, which was acquired by the respondents for the Amravati to Narkhed railway line. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 69,000 per hectare for the land but did not grant any separate compensation for a well situated in the acquired land. The appellant claimed that he had constructed a well of 14 feet diameter and 50 feet depth using bricks and mortar, financed by a loan of Rs. 7,200 from Dena Bank, and valued the well at Rs. 1,50,000. He sought enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the well under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents denied the existence of the well. The Reference Court dismissed the claim, holding that the appellant failed to prove the existence of the well. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court found that the appellant had examined himself and an architect/engineer, Rameshchandra J. Karwa, who valued the well, and produced documentary evidence including a loan certificate and revenue records showing the well. The High Court held that the Reference Court erred in rejecting the claim without properly appreciating the evidence, and that the appellant had proved the existence of the well. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Reference Court's order and granting compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the well with interest and costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation for Well - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Claim for enhanced compensation for well - Appellant proved existence of well through oral and documentary evidence including architect/engineer valuation - Reference Court erred in rejecting claim without proper appreciation - Held that appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the well (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation for the well constructed in the acquired land, and whether the Reference Court erred in rejecting the claim.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.01.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.111 of 2002 by the 4th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, is set aside. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the well, with interest and costs as per law.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Compensation for structures
- Burden of proof
- Appreciation of evidence
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 196
First Appeal No.164 of 2006
Smt. Dr. Shalini Phansalkarjoshi, J.
Shri S. G. Loney for Appellant; Shri A. R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2; Shri Zahit Shekhani H/F Shri R.G. Agrawal for Respondent No.3
Mohd. Mustak Mohamad Ismail
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Collector Office, Amravati; State of Maharashtra through Collector, Amravati; The Central Railway through General Manager, Bhusawal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against rejection of claim for enhanced compensation for well in land acquisition reference.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the well constructed in the acquired land.
Filing Reason
Appellant was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.01.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.111 of 2002 by the 4th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, rejecting his claim for enhanced compensation for the well.
Previous Decisions
The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs. 69,000 per hectare for the land but no separate compensation for the well. The Reference Court rejected the claim for enhanced compensation.
Issues
Whether the appellant proved the existence of the well in the acquired land?
Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation for the well?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he constructed a well of 14 feet diameter and 50 feet depth with bricks and mortar, financed by a loan of Rs. 7,200 from Dena Bank, and valued at Rs. 1,50,000. He claimed Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.
Respondents denied the existence of the well and contended that no compensation was payable.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant proved the existence of the well through oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of an architect/engineer and revenue records. The Reference Court erred in rejecting the claim without proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation for the well.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is preferred by the original claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.01.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.111 of 2002 by the 4th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, as his claim for enhanced amount of compensation towards construction of the well, filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be rejected.
On appreciation of the evidence led by the appellant, Reference Court was pleased to hold that the well was very much in existence in field Gat No. 1630 belonging to the appellant.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for land but not for the well. The appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was rejected by the Reference Court on 09.01.2006. The appellant then filed the present first appeal in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18
