Dismissal Of Land Acquisition Compensation Enhancement Claim Only Because Claimant Didn't Lead Evidence Not A Decision On Merits: Bombay High Court

“The determination of the issues has to be on the basis of merits and by taking into consideration the factors which are set out in Section 23 of the Act. In the absence of any such exercise being carried out by the reference Court dismissal of the reference on the ground of non-adducing of documentary or oral evidence by the claimant cannot be said to be a decision on merits.”

The five Land Acquisition References (LARs) sought enhancement of compensation for acquisition of five pieces of land at village Elechpur, Nanded. In all the five references, neither the claimants nor the Land Acquisition Officer adduced any evidence.

In the absence of the parties and as well as any oral or documentary evidence on part of both the parties, the reference Court held the claimants not entitled for enhancement in compensation. Hence the claimants approached the high court.

Advocate P. B. Rakhunde for the petitioners submitted that the reference Court did not decide the claims on merits but dismissed it on the grounds that the claimants did not pursue the matter and did not adduce any evidence.

The Additional Government Pleaders for the state objected to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the decision of reference Court was on merits and therefore an appeal would lie under section 54 of the Act of 1894. Further, burden was upon the claimants to adduce evidence showing that the awarded compensation was inadequate.

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that a person not satisfied with the compensation may apply to the Collector to refer the matter to the court.

Referring to Apex Court judgement in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the court said that the reference Court must treat the reference as an original proceeding and determine the market value of the land afresh on the basis of material produced before it.

Section 26 of the Act provides that every award by the reference Court has to specify the amount awarded under each clause of Section 23(1) as well as the ground for awarding the same.

Therefore, the court said that the award passed by the reference Court in the present petitions is not an award under section 26 of the Act as the reference Court did not come to a definite finding as to the amount of compensation which the claimant is entitled to.

The court rejected the state’s submission that the decision is on merits as the procedure under order XVII Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC was followed. The court observed that the as per Section 53 of the Act, the provisions of CPC apply unless they are inconsistent with the Act. However, form of Award of the Reference Court is set out in Section 26 of the Act and the Reference Court has to follow the procedure set out in Part-III of the Act, the court stated.

An award under Section 26 of the Act is deemed to be a decree and a judgment. The definition of decree under Section 2(2), and judgment under Section 2(9) of the CPC specifically excludes any order of dismissal and hence the impugned orders cannot be considered award under the Act, the court reasoned.

The court also condoned the delay of about 4 - 5 years in instituting the present petitions observing that the petitioners are agriculturalists residing in remote areas and are not well informed about their rights. “Most of these petitioners are agriculturists residing in remote areas and cannot be said to be well informed about their rights. What is worthwhile to note is that most of the petitioners are from rural area and have been deprived of their private property, by of course, providing compensation however the amount of compensation is required to be adjudicated and there has to be a satisfaction the acquisition of the property has taken place after providing adequate compensation”, the court observed.

The court restored all five LARs and directed the reference Court to permit the claimants as well as the state or acquiring body to lead evidence in support of their contentions.

Case no. – Writ Petition Nos. 13332, 13336 of 2022 and 24, 28, 57 of 2023

Case Title – Chandaba w/o. Gangaram Pauyed v. State of Maharashtra with four connected cases

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 82