fa1152.08
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2008
Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Jaripatka, Nagpur. APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Sitabai Keshvrao Agre
(Dead) through its legal
representatives:
1]Keshorao Bholaji Agre
2] Gajanan Keshvrao Agre
3] Dhanraj Keshvrao Agre
4] Tirathaprakash Agre
5] Shakuntala Sitaram Sarode
6] Vachlabai Omprakash
Vishwakarma
7] Sushila Anirudha
Vishwakarma
All R/o village Gondegaon,
Tah. Parshivni, Distt. Nagpur.
8] The State of Maharashtra
through Collector Nagpur.
9] The Special land Acquisition
Officer, Pench Project No. 1,
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:40 :::
fa1152.08 2 Shri C. S. Samudra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 7. Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 8 & 9.
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : MAY 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the Reference Court dated 18.01.2008 in Land Acquisition Case No. 106 of 1998.
2] The lands admeasuring 1 H 77 R from Survey No. 59/1 and 1 H 41 R from Survey No. 62/2 situated at village Gondegaon tahsil Parseoni district Nagpur were the subject matter of acquisition. The Notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 25.04.1993 and the award was passed on 25.06.1996. As the claimants were aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer they filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court granted amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- per hectare for the lands, Rs. 5000/- for one tamarind tree and Rs.
1500/- for one Bori tree. Being aggrieved by an amount of compensation granted the present appeal has been filed.
3] Shri C. S. Samudra, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the challenge for enhancement was in respect of what is granted for the trees. He submitted that in para 28 of the impugned ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:40 ::: fa1152.08 3 judgment the Reference Court observed that though there was no evidence on record to justify enhancement, Rs. 5000/- for the tamarind tree and Rs.
1500/- for the Bori tree was being granted. He submitted that in First Appeal No. 786 of 2006 relating to acquisition from the same village arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999, an amount of Rs. 2500/- for one tamarind tree has been maintained. He submitted that even the enhancement for the Bori tree was unjustified.
4] Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.
1 to 7 supported the impugned judgment. According to him the amount of enhancement granted by the Reference Court was reasonable and the same did not deserve to be interfered with. He however, did not dispute the adjudication in First Appeal No. 786 of 2006.
Ms. N. P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for the respondent nos. 8 and 9.
5] The following point arises for consideration:
Whether the award of the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with?
6] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the impugned judgment. The evidence on record does not indicate that any evidence was led for seeking enhancement for the tamarind tree or Bori tree. This fact is recorded in para 28 of the impugned judgment.
Considering the fact that in First Appeal No. 786 of 2006 the arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 wherein the amount of Rs. 2500/- for the Tamarind tree has been granted, same amount deserves to be granted in ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:40 ::: fa1152.08 4 the present case. The amount of Rs. 5000/- for the tamarind tree as granted by the Reference Court is liable to be reduced to Rs. 2500/- for the same.
However, in so far as Bori tree is concerned the amount of Rs.
1500/- for the same appears to be reasonable. The point as framed is answered by holding that the judgment of the Reference Court is required to be partly modified.
6] In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated 18.01.2008 in Land Acquisition case No. 106 of 1998 is partly modified. The claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2500/- for one tamarind tree. Rest of the award passed by the Reference Court stands confirmed. The First Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. The claimants are entitled to receive the amount of compensation in terms of aforesaid judgment.
JUDGE svk ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:40 ::: fa1152.08 5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:40 :::