Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC 325
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ss. 18, 13, 3(a), 23 and 19 - Reference - Right of landowner to amend amount claimed in reference application and
seek higher compensation - Limitation period therefor, whether governed by S. 18 - Where such increase in
compensation is claimed only for land, whether it includes increased compensation claim for trees or structures thereon -
Held, there is no obligation on landowner to specify amount of compensation in reference application and same may be
specified in statement filed before Reference Court - Period of limitation is inapplicable for specifying amount of
compensation claimed - Consequently, if reference is in regard to objection as to amount of compensation, Reference
Court can permit amendment of amount claimed as compensation - What is impermissible after expiry of period of
limitation specified in S. 18, is changing nature of objections from one category to another i.e. where reference is sought
regarding amount of compensation, landowner cannot after period of limitation, seek amendment to change objection to
objection as to measurement or objection as to apportionment - Further held, fact that landowner had sought increase
only in regard to land, will not bar him from seeking increase even in regard to trees or structures - Reference Court has
full power to determine compensation for land, buildings, trees and other appurtenances, (2011) 9 SCC 325-A
Interpretation of Statutes
Land acquisition statutes - Imposition of any condition depriving innocent and ignorant landowner from amending his
claim for compensation, in absence of any such provision in statute, held, unjust, (2011) 9 SCC 325-B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ss. 11, 12, 18, 19 and 23 - Powers of LAO - Nature of - Held, Land Acquisition Officer is not a court - When he
determines compensation, he does not adjudicate, but merely makes an offer for acquired land on behalf of Government -
If landowner considers amount offered by LAO to be inadequate and makes a request within prescribed period, for
reference to civil court under S. 18, LAO is bound to refer matter to civil court for determination of compensation - Neither
act of making award offering compensation nor act of referring matter to a civil court for determination of compensation at
request of landowner are judicial functions, but are administrative functions - Further held, S. 18(3) [as added in
Maharashtra] providing that LAO shall be deemed to be a court subordinate to High Court, is only for limited purpose of
enabling a revision under S. 115 CPC to be filed against order of Collector under S. 18, and not for any other purpose,
Court Fees
Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (36 of 1959)
Sch. I Entry 15 and S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Payment of one half ad valorem fee on difference between
amount awarded by Collector and amount claimed by claimant - Nature of requirement - Held, same is only a
requirement in regard to Court Fees Act - If claim is amended later, additional court fee may have to be paid -
Requirement under Court Fees Act cannot be read as a requirement under Land Acquisition Act - Bar of limitation will not
apply even if amount is specified in application for reference and subsequently a higher amount is sought by way of
amendment,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S. 23 - Compensation - Determination of - Valuation of land and trees standing thereon separately - Circumstances
envisaged - Held, where land value has been determined with reference to sale statistics or compensation awarded for a
nearby vacant land, then necessarily, trees will have to be valued separately - But if value of land has been determined
on basis of sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is land with fruit-bearing trees, then there is no
question of again adding value of trees - Further, if market value has been determined by capitalising income with
reference to yield, then also question of making any addition either for the land or for trees separately does not arise - In
instant case, determination of market value was not with reference to yield nor was it with reference to value of any
orchard but was with reference to vacant agricultural land - Hence, value of trees had to be added to value of land,
Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (36 of 1959)
Sch. I Entry 15 and S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - State Governments of Maharashtra and Gujarat directed to
consider feasibility for providing for a nominal fixed court fee on application for reference,
No comments:
Post a Comment