Punade Landowner Keeps Rs 10/Sq-Metre Rate As Bombay HC Rejects State Appeal Despite No Reliable Sale Deeds

The State challenged the Reference Court’s award enhancing compensation for 8 gunthas of agricultural land at Punade, acquired for an irrigation project, from the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s rate of Rs.2.41 per sq. metre to Rs.10 per sq. metre.

The Section 4 notification was published on 13 March 1989, and the award was made on 9 January 1992.

Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied on his own evidence, a valuer’s report, and rates awarded in other land acquisition references; the State relied on a town-planning officer’s evidence, sale deeds, and a measurement plan.

The High Court heard the State’s appeal in the claimant’s absence.

Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing compensation at Rs.10 per sq. metre, having regard to the valuation evidence, the land’s location and facilities, and rates awarded for comparable lands.

Whether the Reference Court’s enhancement should be set aside because the claimant had not established the value through reliable sale instances.

The Court considered the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including the Section 4 notification as the relevant date in the valuation inquiry.

It applied the principle that compensation may be assessed by considering comparable rates determined in other references where relevant sale instances are unavailable or inadequate; it stated that sale instances need not be considered in every case.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court upheld the Reference Court’s assessment of the land’s topography, agricultural use, access, and available local infrastructure, as well as the claimant’s valuer’s evidence.

It accepted the Reference Court’s decision to give greater weight to the claimant’s valuation evidence and to comparable awards, including Rs.10 per sq. metre for Bendkhal and Rs.12 per sq. metre for Sonkhar, while noting the Rs.10 rate awarded for land at the Panvel–Chirner road junction.

Although the claimant had not produced reliable sale deeds, the Court held that this did not invalidate the assessment because comparable rates from other references could also be considered.

It found no error in the Reference Court’s findings on valuation.

Finding no merit in the State’s appeal, it dismissed the appeal.