258-J-FA-777-08 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.777 OF 2008
Shivram Ramaji Atkari
since deceased Thr. His Lrs.
1. Sitabai Shivramji Atkari
Aged about 68 years.
R/o Dhanodi, Tq. Chandur Railway,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Purushottam Shivramji Atkari
Aged about 58 years.
R/o Dhanodi, Tq. Chandur Railway,
Dist. Amravati.
3. Sushilabai Narayanrao Katole
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Dhanodi, Tq. Chandur Railway,
Dist. Amravati.
4. Pushpabai Vasantrao Khavas
Aged about 45 years, R/o Surat,
Gujrat.
5. Kantabai Vasantrao Gadhave
Aged about 44 years, R/o Warha,
Tq. Tiwasa, Dist. Amravati.
6. Krushnarao s/o Shivramji Atkari
Aged about 42 years, R/o Dhanodi,
Tq. Chandur Railway,
Dist. Amravati. ... Appellants.
-vs-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Its Collector,
Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 :::
258-J-FA-777-08 2/8
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Wardha Project No.IV,
Amravati.
3. Executive Engineer,
Upper Wardha Project No.IV,
Amravati. ... Respondents.
Shri S. S. Shingane, Advocate for appellants.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : DR (SMT) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JUNE 16, 2017 Oral Judgment :
LAC No.182/2003 filed by the appellant before Ad-hoc District Judge-5 at Amravati came to be dismissed vide, judgment and order dated 07/09/2007 on two counts; firstly that the Reference Petition was barred by limitation and secondly on merits holding that the appellant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence on record to show that Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded fair amount of compensation for the acquisition of land and orange trees. Hence he has preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the appeal are to the effect that, appellant is owner and occupant of land bearing field Survey No.217 admeasuring 2.40H situate at village Dhanodi. It is the case of the appellant that there is a orchard of 300 orange fruit bearing trees and a pacca built up well in the field. The land ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 ::: 258-J-FA-777-08 3/8 was irrigated one. Out of the said piece of land, the respondents have acquired middle strip of 0.58 hectare land, alongwith 140 orange fruit bearing tees for the purpose of Chandrabhaga Distribution Canal. As per the grievance of the appellant, though total 140 orange trees were standing on the acquired piece of land, valuation agency counted only 122 orange fruit bearing trees and dropped 18 trees. Moreover, due to acquisition of this middle strip of land from the field of the appellant, he could not irrigate the remaining 105 orange fruit bearing trees as the well of the instant field is situated in eastern side of field and all these 105 orange fruit bearing trees remained on the western side. Respondent No.3 has not granted permission to lay the pipe line on the canal to lift water from eastern to western side. Thus 105 orange fruit bearing trees dried and appellant sustained loss for the same. Therefore he claimed compensation on that also. However LAO totally granted him the compensation of Rs.2,21,722/- only holding the market price of the fruits from the said trees @ Rs.300/- for one thousand fruits though the actual market price was Rs.500/- per thousand fruits. The LAO has also not calculated the correct market value of the acquired land. The amount of compensation awarded on the said count was also inadequate. Similarly, no amount of compensation was granted to the appellant for the loss of 105 orange fruit bearing trees. Thus appellant claimed total compensation of Rs.15,28,000/- but restricted claim up to Rs.10,00,000/- along with solatium, interest, costs etc. ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 ::: 258-J-FA-777-08 4/8
3. This petition came to be resisted by the respondents denying that LAO has not properly calculated the valuation of the acquired land. It was also denied that 105 orange fruit bearing tees of the appellant dried as a result of non supply of water on account of acquisition of middle strip of land. It was also denied that LAO has not calculated either the market price of the orange fruit bearing trees properly. It was submitted that as the LAO has calculated the entire amount of compensation after taking into consideration the provisions of law and also the factual situation, no interference was warranted therein. As attempt was also made to contend that the reference was not filed within limitation and hence it was barred by law.
On the basis of these respective pleadings of both the parties, the Reference Court framed necessary issues for its consideration; firstly, whether the petition was barred by limitation and secondly, whether appellant has received inadequate amount of compensation ? Reference Court answered both these issues in negative and accordingly dismissed the reference petition.
4. In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None was present on behalf of respondent No.3. On the basis of rival submissions advanced by them and on perusal of the impugned judgment of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 ::: 258-J-FA-777-08 5/8 Reference Court and the evidence adduced before it, I am more than satisfied that the Reference Court has committed an error on both the factual and legal aspects.
5. It is pertinent to note that Reference Court has dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is barred by limitation. However, while arriving at this finding, Reference Court has implicitly held that reference was necessary to be filed within six weeks (42 days) from the date of award and held, as the award in this case was passed on 16/09/2001 and the reference was filed on 28/03/2002, the Reference was barred by limitation. It needs to be stated that while arriving at this finding, learned Reference Judge has clearly overlooked and neglected the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, according to which, only after receipt of notice and that too accompanied with the copy of award, so that the claimant could exercise his right of appeal effectively, the period of limitation can start. In the instant case, it is pointed out that as per the averments in the petition, notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was received by the appellant on 22/02/2002 and the reference is filed on 19/03/2002. These averments are not at all controverted. In such situation, it can hardly be said that the reference was filed beyond the period of limitation. Therefore the relevant finding of the Reference Court on this issue needs to be set aside and it has to be held that the reference filed before ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 ::: 258-J-FA-777-08 6/8 the Reference Court was within limitation.
6. Now coming to the merits of the case. In the course of his submission, in support of his case, that LAO has not properly determined the market value of the acquired land and the orange trees, the appellant has examined himself and also led evidence of about three witnesses, including the concerned officer from APMC. To prove loss of orange trees on account of acquisition of middle strip of land, he has also examined the adjoining land owner. On behalf of respondent No.3, the witness by name Anil N. Ladole has examined himself. Perusal of judgment of the Reference Court reveals that Reference Court has refused to place reliance on the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellant on the count of certain admissions given by them in their cross-examination. It is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of concerned witness from APMC office, market price for orange fruits for the relevant period was in the range of minimum rate of Rs.300/- per quintal and maximum rate was Rs.600/- per quintal. According to him, average rate of oranges was Rs.450/- per quintal for the year 1997-98, whereas for the year 1998-99, minimum market rate of orange fruits was Rs.500/- per quintal and maximum rate was of Rs. 800/- per quintal. According to him, the said rate was increased to minimum of Rs.450/- per quintal and maximum of Rs.1000/- per quintal in the year 1999-00. Even if it is accepted that appellant was not selling orange fruits to the APMC as ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 ::: 258-J-FA-777-08 7/8 admitted by him, considering the fact that his field was irrigated, it can be definitely said that the rate which awarded by the LAO at the rate of Rs.300/- for 1000 orange fruits was too meagre. Hence at such a meagre rate holding the appellant entitled for compensation of Rs.1125/- per orange fruit bearing tree, cannot be called in any way as fair and just compensation.
7. In this respect, we cannot lose sight that the respondent has acquired the middle strip of field of the appellant and as a result, appellant is suffering in both ways as his well situated at western side. It may be true that it is admitted by this witness for appellant that if appellant has taken proper precautions then his orange trees in remaining land could not have been damaged but this Court cannot close his eyes to the factual situation of the sight. Moreover, the horticulture report filed by the appellant, even if it is taken to be on an exaggerated side, it shows that the trees of the appellant in Mouje Dhanodi were valued by the LAO at Rs.300/- per quintal, whereas in respect of another award of Mouje Gava, the valuation of the orange trees belonging to Namdeorao Narayanrao Pande was offered Rs.2149/- per tree. It is admitted that village Dhanodi and village Gava are just adjacent. In my considered opinion, therefore, the appellant becomes entitled to get compensation @ Rs.2000/- per orange tree which can be called just and reasonable amount of compensation, instead of the amount of Rs.1125/- per tree as awarded by the LAO.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 :::
258-J-FA-777-08 8/8
8. The appellant has also claimed that at the time of acquisition, there were totally 140 orange trees acquired by the LAO. However he has been awarded compensation only for 122 orange trees. However, as the appellant has not taken objection at the relevant time and therefore he becomes entitled for compensation for 122 orange trees only and not 140 orange trees, as claimed by him.
Thus appeal is allowed.
9. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court is quashed and set aside.
The reference petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the appellant is held entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- per orange tree in place of Rs.1125/- for 122 trees along with all statutory benefits.
Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation within three months.
On such deposit, the appellant would be entitled to withdraw the said amount. Ordered accordingly.
Appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE Asmita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:15 :::