On, 22 November 2022 the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhujanga v. The state of Maharashtra comprising of Justice M.S. JAWALKAR, J reiterates that the contention of acquiring body that compensation cannot be enhanced in absence of new evidence, such claim cannot be considered as earlier evidence laid by claimants does not stand wiped off after matter is remanded.

Facts of the Case

The State of Maharashtra decided to construct a Dam at village Haral and for that reason started to acquire the land from the villagers. The appellant’s land measuring 2.74 H.R. land in Haral came to be acquired. The Section 4 Notification came to be published on 13/11/1997. Section 6 Notification published on 12/01/2000 and the final award came to be published on 02/06/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.1,45,314/- for the acquired land.

The respondent no.3 (Land Acquisition Officer) challenged the reference Court judgment before this Court, on the ground that though it is an acquiring body, it was not made a party before the learned Reference Court and therefore, prayed for quashing of the judgment. This Court by its judgment allowed the appeal and remanded it back with directions to implead the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation as party respondent and with liberty to the parties to prosecute the proceedings in accordance with law.

After remanding back the matter, the learned Reference Court passed the impugned judgment without giving proper opportunity to the appellants nor considering the evidence adduced by the appellant.

Hence, The said judgment and order is being challenged in the present appeal.

PETITIONER CONTENTIONS

The Counsel for the Petitioner contends before the Court that:-

  1. Reference Court has committed patent illegality in holding the matter to be decided in time bound manner.
  2. Reference came to be decided without giving an opportunity to appellants of hearing or to produce additional evidence on record.
  3. The learned Reference Court committed illegality in observing that there is no evidence about the well and not awarded compensation for the same.
  4. The acquired land of the appellants was fertile black soil and irrigated land. The rate of such land was much higher.
  5. The learned Reference Court has not properly assessed valuation of acquired land on the basis of its productivity, non-agricultural potential and thus impugned judgment needs to be quashed and set aside.

RESPONDENT CONTENTIONS

The Respondent contends before the Court that;

  1. Land acquired is not black soil or fertile or irrigated land.
  2. The acquired land is dry Kharip crop medium quality land having no potentiality value.
  3. The applicant has not produced any evidence to prove the presence of trees in the acquired land.
  4. The grounds are not raised by the applicant for enhancement of compensation which are raised now are incorrect and false.
  5. It is further contended that the land acquisition officer before passing the award has taken into consideration, the sale instances of the land in the vicinity for determination of the compensation.

COURT OBSERVATION

The Court in its observation relying on the judgment Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gracinda Braganza, 2018(5) Mh.L.J. 529, reiterates that acquiring body compensation cannot be enhanced in absence of new evidence, such claim cannot be considered as earlier evidence laid by claimants does not stand wiped off after matter is remanded. As such, no new evidence laid by respondent no.3, the earlier evidence laid is required to be considered.

Further, the Court observes that the “All the aspects are being taken into account by the learned Referral Court before remand. After remand, the learned Referral Court without recording any reasons for discarding sale instances which were rightly considered by the learned Referral Court prior to remand, discarded the same. If there is no additional evidence adduced by the respondent No.3 (acquiring body) and in the similarly situated circumstances accepted the enhanced amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in case of Land Acquisition Case No.49/2002, there is no reason at all to the learned Referral Court to take contrary view as if, it is setting in the appeal. As such, I am satisfied that the judgment and order passed on 19/04/2017 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The order is required to be passed as per order passed in 05/04/2010 by Civil Judge, Senior Division before remand.”

Further, the Court Partly allows the Appeal.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:

Picture Source :

 
Ansh