Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 18, 23 & 24 — Enhancement of compensation — Absence of positive evidence

August 23rd, 2013

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 18, 23 & 24 — Enhancement of compensation — Absence of positive evidence — Power of Reference Court — Held, in 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 be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement — The Court cannot go by surmises and conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate Court.

Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spcl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., (1988) 3 SCC 751, Spcl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. etc. etc. v. Siddappa Omanna Tumari & Ors. etc., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168, Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 401, Followed.

HELD: 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 be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement. The Court cannot go by surmises and conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate Court and enhance the amount awarded by reappraising the material that was collected and considered by the Collector. What is important to remember is that a reference to a Civil Court is not in the nature of an appeal from one forum to the other where the appellate forum takes a view based on the evidence before the forum below.

(Para 7)

Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of the present case no evidence having been adduced by the defendants-respondents, whether documentary or otherwise, there was no question of the appellant relying upon such non-existent evidence. Merely because some documents were referred to in the Draft Award by the Collector, did not make the said documents admissible by them to enable the plaintiffs to refer to or rely upon the same in support of a possible enhancement. If a document upon which the plaintiffs placed reliance was available, there was no reason why the same should not have been produced or relied upon. Inasmuch as no such attempt was made by the plaintiffs, they were not entitled to claim any enhancement.

(Para 12)

Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra[Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5160/2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 354/2012)(05/07/2013), 2013(8) SCALE 398 [T.S. Thakur, J.: Gyan Sudha Misra, J.]

Entry Filed under: Legal Updates