Diwakar s/o Tejram Bhure vs The State of Maharashtra

The appellants herein have challenged the judgment and order

dated 06.09.2006 passed by the 1st Adhoc Additional District Judge,

Bhandara (hereinafter referred to as the reference Court) in Land

Acquisition Reference No. 1/2000 (old No. 8/1989) whereby the reference

Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference Court has dismissed

the application of the appellants on the ground of limitation as well as on

merits.

By a Notification issued under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act,

the respondents initiated the process of acquisition of land belonging to

the appellants in Survey Nos.893/1, 893/2 and 893/3 in Tumsar, District

Bhandara, admeasuring 0.33.66 HR (3366 square meters). Upon

culmination of the process of acquisition under the said Act, the Land

Acquisition Officer passed award on 10.04.1987 granting compensation of

Rs.74,494/- to the appellants.

Being dissatisfied with the said award, the appellants filed

reference application on 13.08.1987 under Section 18 of the said Act

seeking enhancement of compensation. In the proceedings before the

reference Court, on the issue of quantum of compensation, the appellants

placed reliance on sale instance of nearby plot of land which had fetched a

price of above Rs.10/- per square feet. The purchaser of the said plot

appeared as witness in support of the contentions raised on behalf of the

appellants.

By the impugned judgment and order, the reference Court held

firstly, that the reference application itself was not within limitation and

secondly, that there was no ground made out for enhancement of

compensation. The reference Court has proceeded on the basis that the

award was declared on 10.04.1987 by the Land Acquisition Officer and that

notice under Section 12 of the said Act was issued on 30.06.1987 and

further because there was no evidence placed on record by the appellants

regarding the date on which the said notice was received, it could be

concluded that the reference application filed on 13.08.1987 was beyond

the period of limitation of six weeks provided under proviso (b) of Section

18 of the said Act. In fact, in its judgment, the reference Court has also

referred to the date on which the appellants had filed their written

objections in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer as if the

said date could be taken as a reference point for calculating period of

limitation.

The record shows that the appellants had received the amount

of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 08.07.1987.

Therefore, even if the said date is taken as a date on which the appellants

became aware of the award, the reference application filed on 13.08.1987,

was well within the period of limitation provided under Section 18 of the

said Act. Thus, the finding rendered against the appellants on the question

of limitation by the reference Court is on the face of it unwarranted.

On the question of enhancement of compensation, the only

evidence placed on record on behalf of the appellants is the aforesaid sale

instance of nearby plot, which had fetched about Rs.10/- per square feet.

While considering the said aspect, the reference Court has discussed the

said evidence including the deposition of AW-2, the purchaser of the said

plot. It has found that the dimensions of the said plot were 25x50 ft., while

the land belonging to the appellants which was subject matter of

acquisition was about 3366 square meters i.e. approximately about 33,000

square feet. On this basis, the reference Court found that since the

dimensions of the plot purchased by AW-2 were very small as compared to

the land of the appellants, it cannot be taken as a reliable basis for

ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants.

The appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on

record, on the question of quantum of compensation by the reference

Court, does not appear to be illogical or unsustainable. It is settled law

that sale instances pertaining to the small plots cannot be the basis for

calculating compensation of huge plots. Therefore, I am in agreement

with the findings rendered by the reference Court pertaining to the

quantum of compensation payable to the appellants.

In the light of above, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that

the reference Court was not justified in dismissing the reference

application on the ground of limitation. The finding rendered by the

reference Court on the quantum of compensation is confirmed and,

therefore, the amount of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition

Officer under award dated 10.04.1987 is upheld. The appeal is disposed of

accordingly with no order as to costs.