V.I.D.C. Thru. Exe. Engineer vs Pramod Marotrao Nighot & 3 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 271 Bom

                                                                       fa441.08


                                        1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                           First Appeal No.441 of 2008

 Vidarbha Irrigation Development
 Corporation,
 through Executive Engineer,
 Lower Wardha Project Division,
 Wardha.                                        .....           Appellant


                                     Versus


 1.     Pramod son of Marotrao Nighot,
        aged about 42 years,
        occupation - cultivator,
        resident of Ithlapur,
        Tq. Arvi, Distt. Wardha.

 2.     State of Maharashtra,
        through Collector,
        Wardha.

 3.     The Special Land Acquisition
        Officer,
        V.I.D.C. Wardha.

 4.     District Rehabilitation Officer,
        Officer of the Collector,
        Wardha.                                 .....        Respondents.


                                      *****




::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:26:17 :::
                                                                                        fa441.08


                                                2



 Mr. V. G. Palshikar, Adv., for the appellant.
 None for Respondent No.1.
 Mrs. Naik, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 to 4.


                                              *****


                                         CORAM :               A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                                         Date         :        01st March, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT:

01. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 [for short, "the said Act"] takes exception to the judgment of

the Reference Court dated 11th September, 2007 in Land Acquisition

Case No. 151 of 2001, whereby the amount of compensation as

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been partly enhanced.

02. Lands admeasuring 0.61 R from Survey No. 24/2 and 1

hectare 21 R from Survey No. 25 owned by the respondent no.1 came

to be acquired for rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons.

Notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 9th March, 1999.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed his Award on 20th June, 2000 and

granted compensation at the rate of Rs.54,500-00 per hectare. The

land owner filed Reference under Section 18 of the said Act and by the

fa441.08

impugned judgment, the amount of compensation was enhanced to

Rs.78,600/- per hectare. Hence this appeal.

03. Shri V.G. Palshikar, learned counsel for the appellant,

submitted that the claimant did not place on record any sale instances

that could justify the enhancement in the amount of compensation. He

submitted that the acquired land was from village Rajapur and the sale

instance with regard to village Karmabad placed on record by

examining witness no.2 had been discarded by the Reference Court. In

absence of any sale instances, whatsoever, from village Rajapur the

amount of compensation could not have been enhanced by the

Reference Court. It was then submitted that the Reference Court took

into consideration the sale instances that were referred to by the Land

Acquisition Officer in his Award. He submitted that unless these sale

instances were duly brought on record in the reference proceedings,

the Reference Court could not have taken cognizance of the same. In

that regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable

Supreme Court in Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of Mah. &

another [Civil Appeal No. 5160 of 2013; decided on 5th July, 2013

(Coram : T. S. Thakur & Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.)]. He, therefore,

submitted that the entire basis on which the amount of compensation

was enhanced by the Reference Court was contrary to law.

fa441.08

04. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1

on 28th February, 2017. Today also, there is no appearance on his

behalf. Mrs. Naik, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appears for respondent

nos. 2 to 4.

05. With the assistance of counsel for the parties, I have

perused the records of the case and I have given due consideration to

the submissions as urged.

06. The following point arises for consideration:-

Whether it was open for the Reference Court to take into consideration sale instances referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer without such sale instances being brought on record before the Reference Court?

07. In support of the prayer for enhancement, the claimant

examined himself at Exh.25. He deposed about the nature of his land

and then stated that in the year 1997, the land was valued at

Rs.44,444-00. He referred to certain sale instances at the rate of

Rs.65,500-00 per hectare. He, however, did not place on record any

sale instance. In his cross-examination, he stated that village Rajapur

was at a distance of about ten kilometers from Arvi and the weekly

market was held at Arvi. He further stated that he could not collect

fa441.08

any sale instances of his village.

The claimant then examined one Gopal Jichkar at Exh.31 to

place on record sale instance dated 3rd June, 1998 with regard to

village Karmabad. This sale instance is at Exh.32. It is to be noted

that the Reference Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment has discarded

this sale instance on the ground that it related to a different village.

08. The appellant examined Special Land Acquisition Officer to

justify his Award. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the learned

Judge of the reference Court proceeded to take into consideration the

sale transactions which were referred to in the Award. After referring

to sale transaction at Serial No.7, dated 7th June, 1997, the Reference

Court proceeded to hold that this sale instance was from village

Rajapur itself and, therefore, it should not have been discarded by the

Land Acquisition Officer. On that basis, the Reference Court enhanced

the amount of compensation.

09. In Ramanlal Deochand Shah [supra], the Honourable

Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position that the Award passed

by the Land Acquisition Officer is merely an offer and the material

utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the Court

unless such material is produced and proved before it. It has been

fa441.08

further held after referring to earlier decisions that the claimant, who

seeks enhancement, has to independently lead evidence before the

Reference Court and he cannot rely upon documents relied by the

Land Acquisition Officer without producing them before the Reference

Court. It is not the case on record that the sale transaction at Sr. No.7

of the Award was admitted by the appellant. Considering the aforesaid

legal position, it can be seen that the Reference Court was not justified

in relying upon transaction at Sr. No.7 that was referred to by the Land

Acquisition Officer in his Award without the said sale transaction being

brought on record by the claimant in accordance with law. If this sale

transaction is excluded from consideration, then there is no other

material on the basis of which the enhancement made by the Land

Acquisition Officer can be sustained. It is, thus, clear that the

Reference Court committed an error in relying upon material that was

taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer without such

material being independently proved by the claimant. The point as

framed is answered accordingly.

10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the only conclusion that

can be arrived at is that the judgment of the Reference Court dated

11th September, 2007 cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly

set aside. It is held that the respondent no.1 is entitled for

fa441.08

compensation for his acquired land at the rate as determined by the

Land Acquisition Officer.

11. Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

Judge

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|