SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER Vs. KALYANJI DEWJI DHARSI
LAWS(BOM)-1954-7-19
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 22,1954

Special Land Acquistion Officer Appellant
VERSUS
Kalyanji Dewji Dharsi Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SECRETARY OF STATE V. DINSHAW [REFERRED TO]
(CHENNUBHOTLA) VENKATASUBBARAYUDU VS. (DUVVURI) NAGAMMA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

APPU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1976-1-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

TEHDOLKAR J. - (1.)MR . Mody wishes to examine this witness further with regard to the damage sustained by the claimants by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting other property of the claimants. The plea is that as the land was acquired for use as a cemetery or a burial ground, the vicinity of a cemetery or a burial ground would injuriously affect the value of the remaining land of the claimants.
(2.)MR . Khandalwalla for the Special Land Acquisition Officer objects to such evidence being led on the ground that a claim for damages sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the other property of the claimants was not put forward at any time before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and it cannot be allowed to be put forward for the first time upon a reference.
Now, in so far as the facts of this reference are concerned, the claim put forward before the Special Land Acquisition Officer was put forward in a report of Messrs. V.M. Mody and Co., architects; and the report after citing various instances of sales of land concludes by asking for the land the flat rate of Rs. 35 per square yard as the price of land. There is not even the remotest suggestion in the report that the claimants had suffered any damages of the kind now alleged. Then after the award was made, an application was made to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a reference to this Court. The application is dated June 12 and merely states that the claimants object to the amount of compensation awarded on the ground that the amount is inadequate. Annexed to this petition is what is intended to be the grounds of objection. There is no suggestion in these grounds that any damage of the kind now alleged was suffered by the claimants and that they claimed any compensation in respect of such damage. Those being the facts, the question to consider is whether it is open to the claimants for the first time on this reference to' allege and seek to prove that they sustained damage by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting their other property.

(3.)IN order to determine this question, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Act. Section 9(2) provides that upon a public notice being given of intention to acquire, the notice shall require all persons interested to appear before the Collector and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and thx; amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interest. After this is done the Collector is directed by Section 15 to determine the amount of compensation in accordance with Sections 23 and 24. Section 23 sets out seriatim the matters which shall be taken into account in determining the amount of compensation. The first matter to be taken into account is the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1), and the matters 'secondly' to 'sixthly' enumerated in this section as matters which shall be taken into account are all different kinds of damage sustained by the person interested by reason of the acquisition. The matter 'fourthly' enumerated relates to the damage sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the claimant's other property. While in every case there must of necessity be some market value of the land acquired, there need not be in every case damage under all or any of the heads 'secondly' to 'sixthly' enumerated; and the only person who can be in a position to say that he has sustained damage by reason of the acquisition would obviously be the claimant, and he and he alone can be in a position to substantiate such a claim. It cannot be therefore that the: Special Land Acquisition Officer, in the absence of any claim for damages having been put forward before him, can conceivably take into account any claim for. damages in determining the compensation to be awarded ; and it appears to me to be plain that if a claimant desires to claim compensation on the basis of damage sustained under any of the heads 'secondly' to 'sixthly' set out in s. 23, he must so state in the particulars of his claim which he is required to put in by reason of Section 9(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.