1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 377 of 2006
Appellant : Mukeshkumar Hiralalji Hirani, aged about 29
years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Wani,
District Yavatmal
Versus
Respondents: 1) The State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Yavatmal
2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Road
Project, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal
3) The Executive Engineer, Public Works
Division No. II, Yavatmal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anup Gilda, Advocate for appellants Shri B. M. Lonare, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 21st November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 29 th November 2005 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 129 of 2002 by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada (Kelapur).
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:28 ::: 2
2. After hearing both sides, I find that there is a great substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the value of the acquired land determined by the Reference Court is not in conformity with the admitted facts and law applicable to them. The most important admitted fact in the present case is the one which relates to development potential of the acquired land as the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act clearly mentions that the acquired land has the non-agriculture potential. This is an admission given by the State and, therefore, it was the duty of the Reference Court to have appropriately considered such admission given by the State in determining the market value of the acquired land. That has not been done by the Reference Court.
3. The Reference Court, it is further seen, has done some guesswork without any reasonable basis and imagined the figure of Rs. 2600-2700 as the annual yield per acre from the acquired land and then applying multiplier of "10" has determined the market value of the acquired land. There is no evidence whatsoever available on record on the basis of which such guesswork can be made by the Reference Court. The Reference Court has also stated that considering the situation of the acquired land, its nature of it being a dry-crop land and the kind of crops ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:28 ::: 3 being cultivated, it was of the opinion that the land owner must have been earning annual income of Rs. 2600-2700 per acre annually from the acquired land. Such determination of the face of it, appears to be perverse.
4. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. Ordinarily, this Court would have proceeded in undertaking the exercise of determining the true market value of the acquired land here only. But, in the present case, it is very difficult to undertake such an effort for the reason that fresh consideration of various factors which are relevant for determination of the true market value of the acquired land would have to be given by the Reference Court itself and that would provide reasonable opportunity to both sides to present their respective cases and also place on record fresh evidence, if required. Therefore, remanding of the application to the Reference Court would be just and proper.
5. In the result, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are hereby quashed and set aside. Application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is remitted back to the Reference Court for determination afresh on the basis of evidence already available on record. ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:28 ::: 4 However, liberty is granted to both the sides to lead fresh evidence, if any, and if such evidence is led by any of the parties, same shall also be considered in accordance with law by the Reference Court.
Parties to appear before the Reference Court on 11 th December 2017 and the Reference Court shall endeavour to finally dispose of the application as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties shall cooperate with the Reference Court in speedy disposal of the application and shall not seek any adjournments except for the reasons beyond their control. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:28 :::