Chintaman & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr
- SCC(1996) 10 SCC 36
- Neutral1996 INSC 843
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 448
- SCR[1996] Supp (4) SCR 368
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where oral evidence is offered to prove the contents of documents that ought to be produced in court, those documents must be exhibited; in their absence, oral evidence regarding their contents is inadmissible, and a court commits manifest error in law by relying on such evidence to determine compensation. Where land acquired for industrial purposes is situated in proximity to an urban area and possesses potential value by reason of its location, the court may enhance the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of its assessment of that locational advantage, even where the documentary evidence proffered by the claimants is inadmissible. Where solatium and interest are awarded under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, solatium is payable at the rate of 15 per cent on the enhanced compensation, and interest is payable at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession until the date of deposit of the enhanced compensation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition, 1894 (for Short, the 'Act') was published in respect of different parcels of lands on February 23, 1964 and March 1, 1964 acquiring an extent of 6.67 acres in the first notification and 2.75 acres in the second notification for the purpose of setting up spinning mill. The lands are situated near Nagpur Municipal Corporation practically now within urban agglomeration. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated October 6, 1966, determined the compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per acre in respect of some lands and Rs.3,000/- per acre in respect of other lands in the first notification and Rs.2,000/- per acre for the lands in the second notification and solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and Section 34 of the Act.
On reference the civil Court by decree and award dated November 18, 1968 enhanced the compensation to Rs.0.40 per sq.ft. On appeal by the State and cross-objection by the claimants, the High Court reversed the decree and award of the reference Court and confirmed the award of the Collector. Thus, these appeals by special leave. Though learned counsel for the appellants stated that the High Court was in error in not relying upon the sale deed (Exts. 39 and 40) to an extent of Rs.5,000/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 4,000/- per sq.ft. respectively, the High Court was wholly right in its conclusion for the reason that neither the sale deeds not the certified copies thereof were exhibited in the Court. In these circumstances, the documents are inadmissible, though the witnesses, AW 9 and 10 have been examined to speak on these transactions. In the absence of the sale deeds, no oral evidence could be relied upon. The reference Court had committed manifest error of law in relying on that evidence. But the fact that the lands are very near to the city and possessed of a potential value is not in dispute. Under these circumstances, we think that the appropriate course would be that the market value of the lands in respect of which Rs.5,000/- was awarded by the Collector shall be determined @ Rs. 8,000/- per acre and the lands for which Rs.3,000/- was awarded, would be valued @ Rs. 6,000/- per acre. Similarly, in the case of second notification, the market value would be determined @ Rs.4,000/- per acre.
The award and decree of the reference Court is modified to the above extent. The claimants are entitled to solatium and interest under Section 23(2) @ 15% on the enhanced compensation and interest under Section 28 @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession till date of deposit of enhanced compensation.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free