F.A.No.499/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.499 OF 2011
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Nagpur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division No.2,
Nagpur .. Appellant
Versus
. Shri Baburao s/o Gunderao
Lingayat, Aged about 45 years,
Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Bazar Chowk,
Near Poddar's Hospital,
Ward No.14, Kalmeshwar,
District Nagpur .. Respondent
Mrs M.S. Naik, A.G.P.for appellant
Mr S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 13th April 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is by the acquiring body and the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The respondent-claimant owns agricultural land bearing Survey No.451 admeasuring 1.49 hectare situated at Mouza Kalmeshwar. Taluka and District Nagpur. Land to the extent of 0.36 R was acquired pursuant to Section 4 notification dated 5th February 1998 and notice under Section 6 was published on 8th April 1999. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.1,33,500/- per hectare i.e. total compensation of Rs.48,958/- and Rs.2,39,770/- for 159 orange trees.
3. As the compensation was found to be meager, Land Acquisition Reference Case No.29 of 2007 was preferred under Section 18 of the ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2017 00:14:29 ::: F.A.No.499/2011 2 Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per hectare and Rs.2,000/- per orange tree. Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed for division of the field in multiple parts, Rs.15,000/- towards damage to the PVC pipeline and Rs.24,000/- for twelve orange trees. The total claim was of Rs.6,50,000/- against which the reference Court awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- per orange tree, as such present appeal.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant would urge that the reference Court and the Land Acquisition Officer have committed an error of law in awarding compensation for the orange trees, as the compensation for the land is already awarded. According to her, no separate compensation could have been awarded in favour of the respondent.
5. Mr Ghodeswar, learned Counsel for the respondent - land owner would urge that the legal position on the said issue is well settled in catena of judgments. Having considered rival submissions, it is noted that the claimant has examined himself at Exh.8 and one Ganesh at Exh.17.
6. The appellant-original non-applicant has not adduced any evidence. So far as award of compensation for the orange trees is concerned, though the quantum thereof is not disputed, as the same is based on the evidence of the claimant and the neighbour's evidence, it is required to be noted that issue as regards awarding separate compensation for the fruit bearing trees is no more res integra. The Supreme Court has already held in the matter of AMBYA KALYA MHATRE (Dead) THROUGH L.R.S AND ORS.VS. ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2017 00:14:29 :::
F.A.No.499/2011 3 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 325 separate compensation can be awarded for the fruit bearing trees.
7. In view thereof, in my opinion, no case for interference in the appellate jurisdiction is made out. Appeal fails, stands dismissed.
( N.W. SAMBRE, J.) vvr ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2017 00:14:29 :::