RAMANLAL DEOCHAND SHAH versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 05-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 631 
RAMANLAL DEOCHAND SHAH 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5160 of 2013) 
JULY 5, 2013 
[T. S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: 
A 
B 
s.18 ...,. Reference to civil court - Scope of - Held: A c 
reference.to civil court is not in the nature of an appeal where 
appellate forum takes a view based on the evidence before 
the forum below - In a reference, on the question of adequacy 
of compensation determined by the Collector, the burden to 
prove that his award does not correctly determine the amount 0 
of compensation and that it needs enhancement is upon· the 
landowner - To that extent the claimant is in the position· of a 
plaintiff before the court - In the absence of any evidence to 
prove that the amount awarded by Collector does not 
represent the true market value of the property as on the date E 
of the preliminary notification, the reference court wifl not be 
justified in granting any enhancement - Order of reference 
court set aside and matter remittect to it for disposal afresh 
after giving opportunity to landowners to lead evidence in 
support of their claim - Evidence. 
F 
EVIDENCE: 
Documentary evidence - Held: The documents that 
have not been relied upon before the court by defendant 
cannot be refe"ed to or treated as evidence without proper G 
proof ofcontents thereof. 
Th~ Janc;ts of the appellants in C. A. No. 5160 of 2013 
631 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A were compulsorily acquired for setting up of a 
Polytechnic Engineering College. The Land Acquisition 
Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 26.25 sq. mtr. and 
the reference court enhanced in to Rs. 85 pr. sq. mtr. 
However, the High Court set aside the order passed by 
B the reference court holding that the el"!hancement was 
not justified in the absence of any evidence to show that 
the market value of the property in question was higher 
than what was assessed by the Special Land Acquisition 
Officer. 
c 
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A reference to a civil court is not in the 
nature of an appeal where the appellate forum takes a 
view based on the evidence before the forum below. In a 
D reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the 
question of adequacy of compensation determined by the 
Collector, the burden to prove that his award does not 
correctly determine the amount of compensation is upon 
the landowner. It is for the claimant to prove that the 
E amount awarded by the Collector needs enhancement by 
adducing evidence, whether oral or documentary which 
the reference court would evaluate having regai:d to the 
provisions of ss. 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. 
To that extent the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff 
F 
before the court. In the absence of any evidence to prove 
that the amount of award by the Collector does not 
represent the true market value of the property as on the 
date of the preliminary notification, the reference court 
will not be justified in granting any enhancement. [para 
G 7) [637 -8-F] 
H 
Chiman/a/ Hargovinddas v. Spc/. Land Acquisition 
Officer & Anr. 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531= (1988) 3 SCC 75; 
Spcl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. etc. etc. v. Siddappa 
Omanna Tumari & Ors. etc. 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 207 =1995 
RAMANLAL DEOCHAND SHAH v. STATE OF 
633 
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
Supp (2) SCC 168; Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and Ors. v. A 
State of Punjab and Ors. 1995 (1) SCR 535 = 1995 Supp 
(2) sec 401 - relied on. 
1.2. The landowners-appellants in the instant case, did 
not lead any evidence in support of their claim before the 8 
reference court. The High Court was, in that view, justified 
in holding that the enhancement granted in the absence 
of any evidence was unjustified. [para 10] [642..C, E] 
1.3. While it is true that the plaintiff can always place 
reliance upon the evidence that may be adduced by a C 
defendant in a suit to the extent the same helps the 
plaintiff, but tile documents that have not been relied 
upon before the court by the defendants cannot be 
referred to or treated as evidence without proper proof 
of the contents thereof. In the instant case, the D 
defendants-respondents did not produce any documents 
before the reference court in support of its case. Even if 
the documents had been produced by the defendants,· 
unless the same were either admitted by the plaintiff or 
properly proved and exhibited at the trial, the same could E 
not by t

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