Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) challenging the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad in Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 1996. The dispute pertained to the acquisition of 0.10 hectare of land from survey number 26 situated at village Dhanora (Bk) belonging to the respondents (claimants). The land was acquired for public purposes under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act (MIDC Act). A notification under Section 32(2) of the MIDC Act was issued on 30.11.1989, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 13.11.1995, determining the compensation at Rs. 5668 per acre or Rs. 14000 per hectare. The claimants, feeling that the compensation was inadequate, filed a reference application. The Reference Court, relying on a subsequent sale instance (post-notification), enhanced the compensation to Rs. 80,000 per acre or Rs. 1,97,600 per hectare. The appellant MIDC challenged this enhancement, arguing that a post-notification sale instance cannot be considered for determining market value. The claimants contended that there is no complete bar on relying on post-notification sale instances, especially when no other material is available. The court considered the submissions and the precedents cited, including General Manager, Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & anr (2008) 14 SCC 745 and Bhupal Singh & ors v. State of Haryana (2015) 5 SCC 801. The court held that post-notification sale instances cannot be considered as a reference point for determination of market value. However, if no other material is available, a cautious approach may be adopted, but such instances are not a reliable basis. The court found that the Reference Court had erred in relying solely on a post-notification sale instance without any other supporting evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the Reference Court for fresh determination of compensation in accordance with law, considering only pre-notification sale instances or other admissible evidence.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Market Value Determination - Post-Notification Sale Instance - The court considered whether a sale instance after the date of notification under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act can be relied upon for determining market value - Held that post-notification sale instances cannot be considered as a reference point for determination of market value, and if no other material is available, cautious approach may be adopted but such instances are not a reliable basis (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for the acquired land is on higher side?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad in Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 1996 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh determination of compensation in accordance with law, considering only pre-notification sale instances or other admissible evidence.
Law Points
- Post-notification sale instance cannot be considered as a reference point for determination of market value of acquired land
- Compensation must be determined based on pre-notification sale instances or other reliable material
