WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 04-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2671-2672 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 04, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :ss. 4, 6, 17, 18, 23, 24 – Land
acquisition – Determination of compensation in light of clauses
“thirdly” and “fourthly” of s. 23 concerning ‘severance’ and
‘injurious affection’ respectively – On facts, the appellant-land
owner established a township situated at a distance of 36 kms. from
the Railway Station – For a direct and rapid connection between
the two points, the appellant provided its own trolley line in the
year 1946 wherein 35,000 tonnes of heavy material used to get
transported – Part of the trolley line got submerged in the backwaters
of Ujjani Dam project and the remaining portion of the trolley line
situated in the unacquired part of the land had become useless –
Land acquisition officer awarded total compensation of
Rs.1,27,198.31/- and rejected the claim for the unacquired portion
– Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the acquired
part of the land and fixed compensation on account of severance
and injurious affection – However, the High Court interfered with
the award of the Reference Court – On appeal, held: As regards
claim relating to rails and sleepers, rolling stock and increase in
transportation cost, refusal of the High Court to award any
compensation for the injurious affection to one set of movable
property, namely, rolling stock cannot be found fault with – Refusal
of the High Court to award any compensation for increase in
transportation cost, falling under the category of “injurious
affection to earnings” also cannot be faulted – However, the refusal
of the High Court to grant compensation for the injurious affection
sustained by the appellant to one set of movable property, namely,
rails and sleepers forming the trolley line for a distance of 28 kms.,
is unsustainable especially when the grant of compensation for the
injurious affection to rails and sleepers to a stretch of 7 kms.
submerged in the backwaters, has been sustained by the High Court
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 826
826
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
827
– In fact, the State has not come up on appeal against the same –
Remaining portion of the trolley line to a distance of 28 kms has
been rendered useless after the acquisition – Furthermore, clause
fourthly of s.23(1), uses a significant phrase “injuriously affecting
his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or
his earnings” - Thus, injurious affection to property, in any other
manner, may stand on a different footing from injurious affection
to earnings – While there is no evidence on record to connect the
drop in the level of profits from 1975-76 to 1976-77, with the increase
in transportation costs, there is acceptable evidence to show that
movable property became useless after the acquisition – Thus, the
conclusions by the High Court whereby the award of the Reference
Court relating to compensation for injurious affection to rails and
sleepers, was reversed by the High Court, is set aside – Award of
the Reference Court granting a sum of Rs.31,21,860/- towards
compensation for rails and sleepers is restored – As regards, other
claims, the impugned judgment not interfered with.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Before the Reference Court, the Chief
Administrative Manager of the appellant, who was a qualified Civil
Engineer was examined as PW-1, and a retired Director of Town
Planning was examined as PW-15. Both these witnesses referred
to the quotations given by Hindustan Steels Limited, towards
estimated cost of laying the trolley line. After allowing
depreciation and the value for which the material was sold and
after adjusting transportation cost, these witnesses estimated the
cost of rails and at Rs.50,08,288/-. Though the respondents
examined one Shri Mahajan, who also produced independent
calculations, the Reference Court rejected his evidence on the
ground that it did not inspire confidence. Interestingly the
Reference Court did two things, namely, (i) it agreed that the
method or formula adopted by Shri Mahajan was proper and
recognized by the standard authors and yet rejected his evidence;
and (ii) it agreed with the submissions of the Government Pleader
as to why the evidence of Shri Talim, retired Director of Town
Planning should not be relied upon, but eventually held that the
evidence of Shri Ta

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