Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Injurious Affection To Property May Stand On A Different Footing From Injurious Affection To Earnings : Supreme Court

While dealing with section 23(1)(iv) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act") the Supreme Court has observed that injurious affection to property, in any other manner, may stand on a different footing from injurious affection to earnings.The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was considering a civil appeal assailing Bombay High Court's order of modifying the award of the Reference Court passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.While partly allowing the appeal by reinforcing the award of the Reference Court in relation to the compensation of injurious affection to rails and sleepers, the bench in Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. said, "A question may arise as to whether the reasoning given by us for rejecting the claim for loss of earnings in the form of increase in transportation costs, will not apply ipso facto to the claim for compensation for the rails and sleepers also, since the appellant had switched over to road transport in the year 1972 itself. But our answer would be that clause fourthly of Section 23(1), uses a significant phrase viz., "injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings". Therefore, injurious affection to property, in any other manner, may stand on a different footing from injurious affection to earnings. While there is no evidence on record to connect the drop in the level of profits from 1975-76 to 1976-77, with the increase in transportation costs, there is acceptable evidence to show that movable property became useless after the acquisition. Therefore, both stand on different footings."Factual Background In the year 1967, the Government of Maharashtra approved the BHIMA (Ujjani) Irrigation Project as a part of which a 18 feet height dam across the Bhima River was proposed to be constructed at Ujjani about 11⁄2 kms. upstream from Hingangaon bridge on Pune-Solapur National Highway. Before undertaking the construction of the dam, a general survey was carried out, which revealed that a section of the trolley line was set up by Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. ("Appellant") may get submerged. Therefore a spate of correspondence and personal discussions ensued between the officials of the Government and the representatives of the appellant for exploring the possibility of diverting the trolley line. On October 26, 1971 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published which included the land on which a section of the trolley line passed. On December 9, 1981, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award by awarding total compensation of Rs.1,27,198.31/- and rejected the claim of Rs.1,49,85,251/- for the unacquired portion. The appellant's claim in the Award Enquiry was not only for the market value of the land, but also for: (i) compensation for the loss; and(ii) compensation for the injurious affection due to the trolley line becoming obsolete. Appellant's claim also included a claim for the loss sustained by the appellant on account of the unacquired portion being rendered useless.Not satisfied with the award, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18 on January 12, 1982 and the reference court (i) enhanced the compensation for the acquired part of the land to Rs.55,893.23; and (ii) fixed an amount of Rs.80,09,725 as compensation on account of severance and injurious affection. Aggrieved by such enhancement and fixation, the State of Maharashtra filed an appeal in First Appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court on November 19, 2008 reversed Both the appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by a Judgment dated 19.11.2008 modified the award of the Reference Court passed under Section 18.Submission Of Counsels Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan contended that the appellant could not be blamed for not finding an alternative route to lay the trolley line and for not insisting on the Government to invoke the urgency clause for the acquisition of some other land for laying trolley line, as the provisions of Section 17 could not have been invoked for the benefit of a company. It was also his contention that the appellant was able to prove by cogent evidence that the cost of transportation by road was higher. Representing the second respondents- beneficiary, Senior Advocate Deepak Nargolkar argued that the appellant had set up a bogey of a claim about the trolley line in the unacquired portion of land becoming redundant and that having admittedly switched over to road transportation way back in September 1972, the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation for the purported increase in transportation cost.Advocate Sachin Patil appeared for the State of Maharashtra. Supreme Court's Analysis The bench in the judgment authored by Justice V Ramasubramanian to adjudicate on the issue discussed the Law on compensation for severance and injurious...

Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Injurious Affection To Property May Stand On A Different Footing From Injurious Affection To Earnings : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Tags