STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SAT DEV PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appropriate Government issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" on 3rd February, 1970 intending to acquire land admeasuring about 54,650 square meters, being Plot Nos. 6 and 7 situated at village Ambetarkhar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide his Award dated 21st December 1984, awarded Rs. 10 per square meter as compensation payable to the claimants. Dissatisfied by the said Award, the claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the Act claiming higher compensation. The learned District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Land Reference No. 172 of 1986 enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 90 per square meter and also granted other statutory benefits permissible under law. The claimants, still dissatisfied by the judgment of the trial Court dated 11th October 1988, filed First Appeal (Land Acquisition) No. 568 of 1989 for further enhancement of the awarded compensation. However, the State also felt aggrieved by the same judgment dated 11th October 1988 and thus filed two First Appeals, being First Appeal Nos. 219 of 1989 and 220 of 1989 praying that the amount awarded under the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of law and thus is liable to be set aside and the Award of the Collector needs to be restored. This is how all these appeals were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) These appeals came up before the court for hearing on various occasions, but when they came up for hearing before this Bench on 30th April 2007 the court passed the following order:

(3.) Being left with no option, we have heard the appeals of the State ex parte and as nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants in the appeals filed by the claimants, rather than dismissing them for default simpliciter, we would proceed to deal with them, as all these appeals arise from one and the same judgment. It may be necessary to refer to the facts before recording our findings on the contentions raised before us. Though the notification for acquisition of the land in question was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 3rd February 1970, the claimants had approached the Supreme Court by way of writ petition, being Civil Writ Petition No. 656 of 1985 and in that petition the Supreme Court had directed that for all intent and purposes the compensation payable to the claimants would be as on 1st July 1977 and not 3rd February 1970. It was particularly for the purpose that the compensation of the land had not been taken in furtherance to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act till 1st July 1977. It also appears from the record that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had commenced the proceedings for acquisition of the land and had fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 4.80 per square meter as on 3rd February 1970,when certain objections were raised by the claimants in respect of the award, which led to the prolonged proceedings between the parties and the matter thereafter got resolved by the order of the Supreme Court as aforestated. In the petition before the Supreme Court the claimants revised their claim at Exhibit 25 and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per square meter along with statutory benefits, as contemplated under Sections 23(1) and 28 of the Act. It was the case of the Government before the Court that in reply to the notice under Section 9(3) and (4) of the Act, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25 per square meter and even after giving appropriate increase from the year 1977, the claimants would not be entitled to the amount of compensation as claimed by them. To Exhibit 25 of the claimants, additional written statement by way of Exhibit 26 was filed on behalf of the State taking various pleas as to how the compensation should not be enhanced. The trial court vide Exhibit 13 framed the following issues: