Union of India etc. etc. Vs. Sunil Chandra Saha & Anr. etc. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5559-60 of 1994,
C.A. Nos. 5561-93, 5594-5610/94 & 3196/95
C.A. Nos. 7208-7220/95 @ SLP (C) Nos. 15134-146/94
C.A. Nos. 5561-93, 5594-5610/94 & 3196/95
C.A. Nos. 7208-7220/95 @ SLP (C) Nos. 15134-146/94
Petitioner: Union of India etc. etc.
Respondent: Sunil Chandra Saha & Anr. etc. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5559-60 of 1994,
C.A. Nos. 5561-93, 5594-5610/94 & 3196/95
C.A. Nos. 7208-7220/95 @ SLP (C) Nos. 15134-146/94
C.A. Nos. 5561-93, 5594-5610/94 & 3196/95
C.A. Nos. 7208-7220/95 @ SLP (C) Nos. 15134-146/94
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 25, 1995
Head Note:
LAND LAWS
LAND ACQUISITION ACT
Market Value as on date of notification – Denial of notice of hearing to appellant/beneficiaries in award enquiry or in reference – In absence of material evidence the order of High Court set aside – Parties to adduce legal evidence to determine true and correct legal value set aside.
Held:
The appellants-beneficiaries are entitled to a notice and participation in the award inquiry as well as in the refer-ence and could adduce evidence in rebuttal to the claim of higher compensation. Unfortunately, the appellants had no notice nor an opportunity to adduce evidence.
In the absence of such relevant and material evidence it would be difficult to determine compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The award and decree of the Reference Court as confirmed by the High Court stand set aside.(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted in the S.L.Ps.
2. We do not propose to express any opinion on merits. Suffice it to state that neither the claimants nor the Land Acquisition Officer had adduced any legally admissible evidence in proof of the market value prevailing as on the date of notification or in rebuttal. The appellants-beneficiaries are entitled to a notice and participation in the award inquiry as well as in the refer-ence and could adduce evidence in rebuttal to the claim of higher compensation. Unfortunately, the appellants had no notice nor an opportunity to adduce evidence. Both the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer merely marked the sale deeds without examin-ing either the vendor or the vendee to bring on record the cir-cumstance in which the sale deeds came to be executed, the distance of the lands to the acquired lands, the nature of the respective lands and whether they would offer comparable sales to determine just and fair market value to the acquired lands. In the absence of such relevant and material evidence it would be difficult to determine compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The award and decree of the Reference Court as confirmed by the High Court stand set aside. The cases are remitted to the reference court for dispo-sal.
3. The appellants are directed to appear before the reference court on August 28, 1995. Parties are at liberty to adduce such legal evidence as is necessary to determine true and correct market value of the land prevailing as on the date of the notifi-cation. The reference court is directed to consider and dispose of these cases within three months from August 28, 1995 after giving opportunity to all the parties.
4. No costs.
1. Leave granted in the S.L.Ps.
2. We do not propose to express any opinion on merits. Suffice it to state that neither the claimants nor the Land Acquisition Officer had adduced any legally admissible evidence in proof of the market value prevailing as on the date of notification or in rebuttal. The appellants-beneficiaries are entitled to a notice and participation in the award inquiry as well as in the refer-ence and could adduce evidence in rebuttal to the claim of higher compensation. Unfortunately, the appellants had no notice nor an opportunity to adduce evidence. Both the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer merely marked the sale deeds without examin-ing either the vendor or the vendee to bring on record the cir-cumstance in which the sale deeds came to be executed, the distance of the lands to the acquired lands, the nature of the respective lands and whether they would offer comparable sales to determine just and fair market value to the acquired lands. In the absence of such relevant and material evidence it would be difficult to determine compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The award and decree of the Reference Court as confirmed by the High Court stand set aside. The cases are remitted to the reference court for dispo-sal.
3. The appellants are directed to appear before the reference court on August 28, 1995. Parties are at liberty to adduce such legal evidence as is necessary to determine true and correct market value of the land prevailing as on the date of the notifi-cation. The reference court is directed to consider and dispose of these cases within three months from August 28, 1995 after giving opportunity to all the parties.
4. No costs.
