The State Of Maharashtra vs Janardhan Yadav Gavali, Bapu ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 196 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. This group of seven appeals arises out of common judgment and award passed in Land References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), filed by the respondents land owners, whose lands were acquired for construction of percolation tank and a common question is involved in all these appeals, therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by common judgment. All these appeals are filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award dated 10.3.1987, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 75 to 78 and 80, 81 and 83 of 1982.

2. The State of Maharashtra issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act seeking to acquire lands belonging to the respondents of village Miri, taluka Pathardi, district Ahmednagar, for public purposes, namely construction of percolation tank. The above said notification was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 28.2.1980. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 8.10.1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the price of the acquired lands and he passed the award on 14.12.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands in three groups, viz. inferior, medium and superior. No evidence was adduced in support of the claim before the Land Acquisition Officer either by the claimants or by the acquiring body. The Land Acquisition Officer collected the sale instances and prepared a sale statistics pertaining to the lands in three groups. So far as first group is concerned, no land was acquired from that group. So far as second groups is concerned, he collected 12 sale instances from the years 1975 to 1979 ranging from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 5732/- per hectare. The sale statistics is only from village Miri itself. The highest price fetched in that group was Rs. 5732/- per hectare. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the price of the land in second group at Rs. 3,000/- per hectare and awarded compensation at that rate to the land owners along with statutory benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands. The claimants submitted that the market value of the lands fixed by Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the said value does not reflect the correct market value prevailing during the relevant period of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the References, they claimed market value at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per hectare.

4. On notices being served, original respondent/State put appearance through the learned District Government Pleader. However, the said respondent had not filed any written statement, but the learned D.G.P. relied upon the award itself.

5. The Reference Court framed issues. The claimants examined themselves in their respective references, but did not produce any evidence as regards market value of the lands either oral or documentary by producing the certified copies of the sale deeds or by examining the vendors or purchasers of the lands. The original respondent also did not produce any evidence.

6. It is pertinent to note that though no evidence has been produced either by claimants or by the respondent before the Reference Court, the Reference Court relied upon the sale statistics from the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as intrinsic evidence. It may be noted that as per the said sale statistics the maximum price fetched, as referred to in the award, is Rs. 5732/- per hectare. However, the learned Judge of the Reference Court, taking into consideration the passage of some time from the date of sale till date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, fixed the value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per hectare and awarded enhanced compensation by calculating the market value at that rate. The Reference Court also awarded the statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation. The enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court in Reference Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81 and 83 is to the extent of Rs. 4185/-, Rs. 29720/-, Rs. 15,165/-, Rs. 9,475/-, Rs. 19,665/-, Rs. 10,400/- and Rs. 19,940/with statutory benefits thereof.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and awards, passed by Reference Court, the State of Maharashtra has preferred all these appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the said awards.

8. Heard the respective parties.

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the learned Judge of the Reference Court committed error to award enhanced compensation for the lands without any evidence on record. He submitted that the Reference Court failed to appreciate that the claimants did not adduce any evidence to determine the market value of the lands prevailing on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. He vehemently argued that it was an error to rely upon the sale statistics prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while holding inquiry for arriving at the market value in the instant cases. He further contended that the Reference Court failed to appreciate that the claimants being in a position of plaintiffs must prove the market value of the lands prevailing at the relevant time. It is further contended that, however, the Reference Court has adopted a novel method for determining the value of the lands by observing that sale instances collected by the Land Acquisition Officer can be relied upon as intrinsic evidence to ascertain the market value in the instant case. In support of the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, .

10. As against the above arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the respondents (original claimants) has fully supported the judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court contending that the sale statistics prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer during the inquiry on the basis of the sale instances collected by him, is the evidence collected by the original respondent/State and as such there was no error in treating the same as intrinsic evidence to ascertain the market value of the acquired lands. He has not cited any case in support of his contention.

11. As already stated, the land owners in their References deposed that their lands have been acquired by the State for construction of percolation tank. According to them, their lands are of good quality and they were taking various crops from those lands. They have not adduced any evidence as regards the market value in support of their claim. They have not even produced the certified copies of the sale instances.

12. Now the question arises as to whether the Reference Court can take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award without producing certified copies of the said sale deeds in the court either by the State of by the claimants. The Apex Court has considered this situation in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (cited supra). In the said decision, the view of the Supreme Court on the nature of proceedings under Section 18 of the Act and the duty owed by the court in disposing of the court Reference made under Section 18 of the Act and the position of the claimants can be set out from paras 3 and 4 of the judgment of the Apex Court. Their Lordships observed at page 753 at paras 3 and 4 as under :

"3. Before tackling the problem of valuation of the land under acquisition it is necessary to make some general observations. The compulsion to do so has arisen as the trial court has virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer as a judgment under appeal and has evinced unawareness of the methodology for valuation to same extent. The true position therefore requires to be capsulized.

4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen :

(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.

(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court.

(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

..........................

(only relevant portion excerpted) "

Suffice it to say thereby that it is settled law that the claimant is a plaintiff and Reference is an original proceeding to determine market value afresh. It is for the claimant to produce the material evidence for enhancement of the price of acquired land.

13. In the present matter, claimants have not produced any evidence as regards market value prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Similarly, the respondent/State has also not produced any evidence nor relied upon any material i.e. sale instances referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award. Suffice for our purpose to say that there was absolutely no evidence as regards the market value of the lands prevailing during the relevant period of the notification under Section 4 of the Act before the Reference Court. It is enough to point out that in the light of the foregoing dicta of the Supreme Court, without more, the claimants were plaintiffs before the Reference court and References filed by them were the original proceedings to determine the market value of the lands and as the claimants failed to produce material evidence for enhancement of the price of the acquired lands, the Reference Court was not justified, at any rate, in awarding the enhanced compensation without any evidence before it. As already pointed out from the judgment of the Apex Court, the Reference Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award unless it is produced and proved before the court.

14. There was, therefore, absolutely no evidence before the Reference Court to ascertain the market value, as both the parties failed to produce the evidence as regards market value of the lands. As the claimants are the original plaintiffs and they did not produce any evidence, their References deserved to be rejected. The decision of the Apex Court referred to above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, all the appeals deserve to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court.

15. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. The judgment and awards dated 10th March, 1987, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81 and 83 of 1982 are quashed and set aside. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.