Mukeshkumar Hiralalji Hirani vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Collector ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8918 Bom

                                                  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).

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

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.

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