Can the reference court grant enhanced compensation to a claimant relying on a sale deed mentioned in the award, even though the sale deed was not proved before the court?

 It is necessary to note that the evidence tendered by the claimants in these cases is extremely scanty. The claimants have merely stated about the crops fetched by the claimants from their agricultural lands. They have produced only two sale transactions of village Deulgaon-Mahi to show that one acre of land was sold @ Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre.  Apart from these documents, nothing has been produced by the claimants before the reference Court. However, the reference Court considered the transaction at serial number 11 in the award of the land acquisition officer, dated 15.06.2005 to hold that the transaction at serial number 11 fetched the market value @ Rs. 1,22,448/- per hectare. The reference Court was not justified in considering the sale transaction at serial number 11 in the award passed by the land acquisition officer on 15.06.2005 to grant enhanced compensation to the claimants at the rate ranging from Rs. 1,15,000/to Rs. 1,64,000/per hectare. The learned Counsel for the appellantVidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation has rightly relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (5) BCR 847 (State of Maharashtra v. Prashram Jagannath Aute), which had considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in MANU/SC/0071/1988 : 1988 (3) SCC 751 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer) which laid down the principle that the reference Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the land acquisition officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the reference court as the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against an award passed by the land acquisition officer. In view of the well settled principle of law that the reference Court could not have relied upon the material relied upon by the land acquisition officer in his award, the reference Court in these cases could not have taken into account the transaction at serial number 11 in the award passed by the land acquisition officer dated 15.06.2005 when the saledeed or the extract of sale index of the transaction at serial number 11 of the award was not produced and proved by the claimants before the reference Court. {Para 7}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

First Appeal No. 589 and 590/2010 and Cross Objection No. 18 and 19/2010, 

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs.  Kamlaji Balaji Jadhav and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vasanti A. Naik, J.

Decided On: 07.10.2010

Citation: MANU/MH/1445/2010,2011(3)BomCR331, 2011(1)MhLj231

Print Page

Whether executing court can go into the question of genuineness and validity of the Will in execution of decree?

The present petitions raise an important question of law as to whether an Executing Court giving effect to an award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector can go into the genuineness and validity of the Will set up by one of the heirs of the deceased, in whose favour compensation already stands confirmed.

The rationale behind conferring wide powers on executing courts is clearly to ensure that in case of passage of time and happening of any event-including death of a particular person, parties' rights are adjudicated expeditiously and competing claimants are not relegated to civil courts for retrial, which could delay the execution of decrees to a great extent. There is no reason as to why a different principle ought to be adopted in the case of an Executing Court which is disbursing compensation for land acquisition.

25. The Executing Court has already framed an issue in this matter. The Executing Court can enquire into the genuineness and validity of the Will by recording the evidence of the witnesses, whose evidence may be adduced by the parties. There is no impediment as to why an Executing Court cannot go into the genuineness and validity of a Will. No special rule needs to be adopted in respect of compensation matters concerning land acquisition, inasmuch as the award, which has been passed and has attained finality, has to be implemented and given effect to by the Executing Court just like any other decree. In Delhi, there is no requirement for the Will to be probated. The genuineness of the Will, can be ascertained in executing proceedings, and the Executing Court can then proceed in accordance with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CM (M) 49/2018, CM App. 1317/2018, CM (M) 50/2018, CM App. 1341/2018, CM (M) 67/2018 and CM App. 1713/2018

Decided On: 27.04.2020

 Hari Singh  Vs.  Union of India 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Print Page

Whether reference court can reduce compensation granted by land acquisition officer?

Reference Court cannot grant compensation, which is lower than what is granted by the LAO. In other words, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court, cannot reduce the compensation granted by the LAO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 608 of 2014

Decided On: 05.03.2019

 Corporation of the City of Panaji  Vs.  The Deputy Collector (LA) & Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Panaji and Ors.

Print Page

Whether appeal filed by acquiring body in land acquisition case is tenable in absence of his written statement in reference court

Shri Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for
the claimant, has urged that the appellant – Maharashtra State
Electricity   Board   (now   Maharashtra   State   Power   General
Company Limited) had failed to file written statement to oppose
the   claim   for   enhancement   of   compensation   made   in   the
reference.   He has, therefore, urged that the appellant was not
entitled to file an appeal challenging such enhancement.   The
contention cannot be accepted.  It is for the claimant to establish
the entitlement for the market value of the land.   Even if the
appellant had failed to file written statement opposing the claim
for enhancement, that by itself would not be enough to deny the
appellant   the   right   of   appeal,   which   is   available   in   law,   asprovided under Section  54 of the  Land Acquisition  Act.   The
appellant is entitled to point out to the Court that the claimant
has to stand on his legs, and in the absence of any evidence in

support   of   the   findings   recorded,   the   appellant   is   entitled   to
challenge such findings by filing an appeal.  The appeal cannot be
dismissed   on   that   ground,   and   the   contention   is,   therefore,

rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.518 OF 2003
Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.,
(Formerly known as Maharashtra State
Electricity Board),
Versus
Dr. Sheshrao Baliram Ingole,
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated  : 2nd February, 2016
Citation: 2016(3) MHLJ 786

Print Page

Whether reference court under land acquisition Act can decide matters which are not referred to it?

 It is well established that the reference court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and that civil court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The reference court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. This question was considered by various judicial authorities and one of the earliest decisions reported on this point is Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur vs. Secy of State, AIR 1930 PC 64. This was a case where the claimant sought a Reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the application filed by the claimant, he raised objection only regarding the valuation of the land. The claimant did not dispute the measurements of the land given in the award. Before the reference court, the claimant raised objection regarding the measurements of the land and sought for fresh measurements. This was refused and the claimant applied to the High Court for revision of this order, but without success. Again, in the appeal, the claimant raised the same objection regarding measurements and the High Court rejected it. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held thus :

"Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the "matter" referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it."

Madras High Court

G.Ganapathy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 February, 2014

CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR

Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)512Mad

Print Page

Whether claimant can get impleaded directly in reference court under land acquisition Act?

In our view, it was not open to the appellants (other than Ajjam Linganna) to have applied directly to the reference Court for impleadment and to seek enhancement under Section 18 for compensation. The only person for whom some consideration can be shown is Ajjam Linganna who had atleast filed an application on 14-9-93 before Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference.

Supreme Court of India

Ajjam Linganna And Ors. vs Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 28 November, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2001 (1) ALT 50 SC, (2002) 9 SCC 426

Bench: M Rao, D Raju

Print Page