Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a land acquisition matter where the appellant, owner of land bearing Survey No.217 admeasuring 2.40H at village Dhanodi, had an orchard of 300 orange fruit bearing trees and a pacca well. The respondents acquired a middle strip of 0.58 hectare land along with 140 orange trees for the Chandrabhaga Distribution Canal. The appellant contended that the valuation agency counted only 122 trees, dropping 18, and that due to the acquisition of the middle strip, the remaining 105 trees on the western side could not be irrigated as the well was on the eastern side and permission to lay a pipeline was denied, causing the trees to dry. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded total compensation of Rs.2,21,722/-, which the appellant claimed was inadequate, seeking Rs.15,28,000/- but restricting to Rs.10,00,000/- with solatium and interest. The Reference Court dismissed the petition on two grounds: limitation and lack of evidence. The High Court, in appeal, examined the limitation issue and found that the reference was within time as the limitation period runs from the date of the award. On merits, the court noted that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the loss of 105 trees and the inadequate valuation. However, considering the procedural irregularities, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on all issues, including limitation and merits, after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Computation of Limitation - The Reference Petition was dismissed as barred by limitation, but the appellate court found that the limitation period should be computed from the date of the award and not from the date of possession. The court held that the reference was within time and remanded for fresh consideration on merits. (Paras 1-2)
B) Land Acquisition - Compensation for Trees - Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Valuation of Fruit Trees - The appellant claimed that 140 orange trees were acquired but only 122 were counted, and 105 trees dried due to lack of irrigation. The court held that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the loss, but remanded for fresh adjudication on the issue of compensation for trees. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Petition was barred by limitation and whether the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the compensation awarded was inadequate.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07/09/2007, and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on all issues, including limitation and merits, after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Limitation for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Computation of limitation from date of award
- Sufficiency of evidence for enhanced compensation
- Compensation for loss of trees due to acquisition
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 208
First Appeal No.777 of 2008
Dr (Smt) Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Shri S. S. Shingane for appellants; Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Shivram Ramaji Atkari (since deceased) through his LRs: Sitabai Shivramji Atkari, Purushottam Shivramji Atkari, Sushilabai Narayanrao Katole, Pushpabai Vasantrao Khavas, Kantabai Vasantrao Gadhave, Krushnarao s/o Shivramji Atkari
The State of Maharashtra through its Collector, Amravati; Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Wardha Project No.IV, Amravati; Executive Engineer, Upper Wardha Project No.IV, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against dismissal of Reference Petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhanced compensation for acquisition of land and trees.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,21,722/- to Rs.10,00,000/- with solatium, interest, and costs.
Filing Reason
Appellant was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the dismissal of his Reference Petition by the Adhoc District Judge.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Petition (LAC No.182/2003) was dismissed by the Adhoc District Judge, Amravati on 07/09/2007 on grounds of limitation and lack of evidence.
Issues
Whether the Reference Petition was barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the appellant adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the compensation awarded was inadequate.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the reference was within limitation and that the LAO failed to count all 140 orange trees and did not compensate for the loss of 105 trees due to drying.
Respondents argued that the reference was time-barred and that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support the claim for enhanced compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The limitation period for filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of the award, and the Reference Court must consider the evidence on merits rather than dismissing on limitation without proper inquiry.
Judgment Excerpts
LAC No.182/2003 filed by the appellant before Adhoc District Judge5 at Amravati came to be dismissed vide, judgment and order dated 07/09/2007 on two counts; firstly that the Reference Petition was barred by limitation and secondly on merits holding that the appellant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence on record to show that Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded fair amount of compensation for the acquisition of land and orange trees.
Thus appellant claimed total compensation of Rs.15,28,000/ but restricted claim up to Rs.10,00,000/ along with solatium, interest, costs etc.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.2,21,722/-. The appellant filed a Reference Petition (LAC No.182/2003) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Adhoc District Judge, Amravati, which was dismissed on 07/09/2007 on grounds of limitation and lack of evidence. The appellant then filed the present First Appeal No.777 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18, Section 23
