1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Civil Revision Application no. 32 of 2017
Applicants : 1. Prafulla s/o Narhar Wagh, aged about
54 years, Occ: service,
2. Dr Mrs Snehal w/o Prafulla Wagh, aged
about 52 years, Occ: service
versus
Respondent : Tukaram Pandurang Gainar, aged about
67 years, resident of Pathrad, Tahsil Ner,
District Yavatmal
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent
----------
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 8th June 2017 Oral Judgment ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:55 ::: 2
1. Heard. By this appeal, legality and correctness of the judgment dated 3rd May 2003 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 168 of 2001 has been questioned.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has granted enhanced compensation for acquisition of land admeasuring 1.62 HR from land bearing survey no. 252 situated at Pathrad. The compensation was enhanced by determining the value of the land @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare and fixing the rate of 431 orange trees and 10 orange trees respectively at Rs. 2500/- per tree and Rs. 1228/- per tree. In the enhanced compensation amount, value of the well as well as of bund was determined at Rs. 1,08,500/- and Rs. 72,000/- respectively. The Reference Court further directed the appellants to pay special component at 12% per annum on the amount of enhanced compensation for the relevant period and solatium at 30% on the amount of enhanced compensation.
3. So far as value of the land determined @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare is concerned, I find that it is covered by the judgment of this Court delivered in First Appeal No. 480 of 23003 with X-Appeal (St) No. 21490 of 2003 on 22.6.2016. There is no dispute about the same as well. Therefore, on this count, this appeal is without any substance.
4. As regards the compensation granted for orange trees, other trees, well and bund, I find that the evidence brought on record by appellant can be taken as reasonably establishing the fact that the rates at which the compensation has been claimed by the appellant in this behalf are reasonable. No challenge worth mentioning has been posed to the witnesses examined by ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:55 ::: 3 the respondent. Joint measurement report (exhibit 62) clearly shows that there were 441 trees, but compensation was paid only for 298 trees. The possession receipt vide exhibit 72 also discloses that there were 75 Bor trees, 11 Anjan trees and six Babhul trees and the opinion expressed by the trial Court that these trees were likely to fetch price of Rs. 400/- per trees cannot be said to be not based upon the facts and circumstances of the claim. The same applies to the value of well and bund determined by the trial Court. There is evidence of one Devanand Deolakar who prepared valuation report (exhibit 78) and his evidence has almost gone unchallenged. No suggestion has been given to him that the bund did not exist. The valuation report prepared by him in respect of the well clearly shows that the assessment has been properly done by him and there is nothing in his cross-examination to entertain any doubt about the manner in which the valuation has been ascertained.
5. In the result, I find that there is no merit in the appeal. It deserves to be dismissed with costs. The appeal stands dismissed with costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:55 :::