MAHESH DATIATRAY THIRTHKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1122 · Decided: 04-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 3 S.C.R. 1122 
~ 
A 
MAHESH DATIATRAY THIRTHKAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1526 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 4, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Arlicle 136 - Exercise of power under- Scope of - Held: 
Power thereunder is exercisable not only against judgment 
of reversal on facts but also in cases of concurrent findings 
off act - Supreme Courl would ordinarily not interfere with the 
findings of fact arrived at by High Courl unless conclusions 
D of High Courl are manifestly perverse or unsupporlable from 
evidence on record - On facts, findings made by High Courl 
were arbitrary causing serious miscarriage of justice as 
against the claimant by denying him a just and reasonable 
compensation for properly acquired from him by the State -
E Therefore powers under Arl.136 is exercisable. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Market value of acquired properly - Burden to prove -
Held: ts on the State that has acquired it for a parlicu/ar 
F purpose - On facts, burden of proving inadequacy of the 
. \ 
amount successfully discharged by claimant - Onus then 
sh(fted to State to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain the 
award - State completely failed to discharge the burden -
Enhancement order by reference court restored - Evidence 
G - Burden to prove market value of property. 
Compensation provision of the Act is in the nature of a 
welfare stipulation - State government must be just and fair 
to those whose land it acquires - It is not just and fair to 
H 
1122 
MAHESH DATIATRAY THIRTHKAR v. STATE OF 
1123 
MAHARASHTRA 
deprive the owner of any property without payment of its true 
A 
market value, especially when the law provides that the same 
shall be paid - Welfare legislation. 
Evidence: 
Burden of proof in civil cases - Held: Is that of balance 
B 
of probability and not that of beyond reasonable doubt -
Minor inconsistencies in evidence cannot impeach the credit 
of witness and reliability of its testimony. 
Jurisdiction: 
c 
First appeal jurisdiction - Held: High Court in exercise 
of its first appeal jurisdiction is entitled to come to a different 
findings of fact after considering the evidence. 
The land belonging to appellant was acquired by the 
D 
State Respondent. Land Acquisition officer passed an 
award of compensation of Rs.40,2261- in favour of the 
appellant. Reference Court increased the same to Rs. 
830001-. State Government filed appeal before High Court. 
High Court disbelieved the evidence and the witnesses 
E 
produced by the appellant and set aside the order of 
~ 
Reference court and restored the order of Land 
Acquisition officer . 
• 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
F 
present appeal were: 
(1) Whether this court, in the exercise of its power 
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, would be 
entitled to examine the findings of fact arrived at by the 
High Court while reversing the findings of fact arrived at G 
by the Reference Court and whether this Court in the 
exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution 
of India is also entitled to set aside the findings of fact 
arrived at by the High Court on the ground that the 
judgment of the High Court was not a proper judgment 
H 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R .. 
A of reversal, and 
(2) Whether the evidence adduced by the appellant-
claimant to discharge his burden of proving that the 
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer 
B was inadequate, thus justifying enhancement as ordered 
by the Reference Court was sufficient and reliable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court, in the exercise of its first 
c appeal jurisdiction, was entitled to come to a different 
findings of fact after considering the evidence on record. 
[Para 14] [1135-C] 
2.1. The power under Article 136 of the Constitution 
D of India is exercisable not only against a judgment of 
reversal on facts but also in cases of concurrent findings 
of fact and such powers are wide enough. This Court in 
its discretion may grant leave to appeal from any 
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in 
E 
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or 
tribunal in the territory of India which would be apparent 
also in cases of judgment of reversal and affirmance in 
civil proceed in gs. The scope of Article 136 of the 
Cqnstitution of India cannot be different in civil or criminal 
-
proceedings. It is also true that this C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.