LexAVINASH DHAVAJI NAIK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 222 A AVINASH OHAVAJI NAIK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Civil Appeal No. 4259 of 2002) B APRIL 15, 2009 [S.B. SINHA ANO CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: c s. 23 - Compensation for land acquired - computation of - Belting method - Large tract of grassy lands agriculture in nature and situate in 96 villages acquired in 1970 - Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at Rs. 0. 351- per sq m. - Findings recorded by reference court that no sale D instance was available, there was no industrial or commercial development, no railway station nearby, villages had no lo electricity connection - No evidence brought on record by·· State to indicate annual average yield - Adopting belting method, reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5, E Rs.6 and Rs.101- per sq. m. - High Court reducing compensation from 101 to Rs.71- per sq.m. and upholding Rs.51- per sq. me. for other lands - Held: In case of this nature some1 guess work is inevitable - However, keeping in view the principle of potentiality and positive and negative factors, ... F compensation at Rs. 101- per sq. would be appropriate. The respondent State, in order to form a new city under ·New Bombay Project' Issued on 3.2.1970 a Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . ac;qulring a large tract of land situate in 96 villages. A G declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published on 21-5-1971. .,, The Land Acquisition Collector valued the lands at 35 palse per sq.m. The reference court adopting the belting method enhanced the compensation to Rs.5/· Rs.6/- and Rs.1 Of· per sq.m. for various lands. The High Court H 222 -• AVINASH DHAVAJI NAIK v. STATE OF 223 MAHARASHTRA reduced the compensation to Rs.7 for the lands for A which the reference court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10/@ per sq. m. and fOr other lands held the compensation at the rate of Rs.5/a per sq. m. as Justified. In the appeals filed by the land owners, It was 8 contended for the appellants that the reference court and the High Court erred In rejecting the evidence of expert witness (PW 2) who had estimated value of .lands at Rs.15/· per sq.m. Allowing the appeals In part, the Court HELD:1. As regards the valuation of lands made by c the expert witness (PW 2), the reference court rightly held that the same could not be fully relied upon because .the valuer visited the land on or about 20-6-1987 whereas o notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was Issued on 3-2-1970 and declaration In terms of s.6 was made on 21·5-1971; and that the valuer did not consider the aspect of capitalization properly. [Paras 11 and 22] [228-F-G; 233-C-D] E 2.1. Findings of fact were arrived at by the reference court that no sale Instance was available for the lands situated In the village and there was no industrial or commercial development therein; that there was no railway station nearby the village; that the villagers did F not obtain any electricity connection; and that the land was a grassy land. Enough material was not brought on record to establish the yield of the lands sought to be acquired, which are admittedly agricultural In nature. In all fairness, the State should have brought on record the G requisite Information, viz., the nature of the crop, the annual average yield, availability of Irrigation facilities, etc. so as to enable the reference court to arrive at a correct decision In regard to grant of compensation under the Act. [Paras 12 and 13] [229·A·D] H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A 2.2. In order to assess potentiality of a land, the court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. In a case of this nature the court may proceed on the presumption that B such a vast tract of land, viz. lands of 96 villages were sought to be acquired at the same time for construction of New Bombay. Some guess-work Is inevitable, However, the judgment rendered by the High Court In · respect of the lands covered In Civil Appeal No. 4264-66 c of 2002 may be a safe guide particularly when the reference court itself opined that the valuatlon of the land should be determined at Rs. 10 per sq. m. Thus, the said valuation adopted may be considered as providing for some guideline. Therefore, keeping in view the aspect of D potentiality of the land and posit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.