The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal in the instant matter instituted under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was directed against the judgment and award dated February 27, 2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, in a land acquisition case which was under challenge. The Court was of the view that it did not find the impugned order passed by the Reference Court to be perverse or one that suffered from any sort of legal infirmity.
A Single bench of Justice V.G. Bhist dismissed the instant appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was directed against the judgment and award dated February 27, 2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, in a land acquisition case which was under challenge. The Single Judge bench was of the opinion that the Reference Court took into consideration all the necessary oral and documentary evidence while passing the award and thus the impugned order requires no intervention.
The present appeal was preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 directed against the judgment and award dated February 27, 2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, in a land acquisition case which was under challenge.
Lands bearing Survey No. 28, Survey No. 39, Survey No.74, and Survey No. 75, were the subject matter of acquisition for submergence under the Lower Wardha Project.
The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated March 30, 2002 and fixed the market value of the acquired lands of different rates at the rate of Rs. 62,475/-, Rs. 64,833/-, Rs. 97,250/-, Rs.61,635/- and Rs.61,909/- per hectare, respectively, for the above-said acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer offered total compensation of Rs. 1, 55,438/-, Rs. 2, 05,198/-, Rs.1, 40,997/- and Rs.70, 211/- respectively for the total areal admeasuring 7.37 H.R. of acquired lands.
There were fruit bearing trees in the acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.2, 65,283/- for orange and Rs.1,633/-for other trees and Rs.4,050/- for well situated in Survey No.74. The claimant accepted the amount of compensation under protest.
The claimant was not satisfied with the Award as passed and in pursuance of the same, the claimant filed the proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court by its judgment and award dated February 27, 2015 partly allowed the claim and enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.2, 00,000/- P.H. for acquired lands of Survey No.28, Survey No. 74, Survey No. 75, and towards acquired land of Survey No. 30,situated at Mouza Mubarakpur, Wardha.
Further, it directed the respondents to severally and jointly pay an amount of Rs. Rs.50,55,000/- (after deducting the amount of compensation already paid) towards enhanced compensation of fruit bearing trees, situated in the field bearing No. 28, 74 and 75 along with statutory interest.
It was this impugned order that was assailed by the Acquiring body by way of present appeal.
After pursuing all the material on record and after taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, the Court observed that the market value of compensation in respect of acquired land is to be reckoned on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the said Act. This being so, the learned reference Court was justified in taking into consideration the sale instance of mouza Borgaon dated December 21,1998 to be nearer and comparable to the acquired lands.
The Reference Court besides that also took into consideration the shape, level, fertility and quality of the land covered by the sale instance as well as the fact that facilities available therein and of the acquired lands were similar. On the basis of these materials, the Reference Court found that the Land Acquisition Officer did not take into consideration the prevailing sale instances in the vicinity. There is nothing wrong in the said observation, the Court noted.
It was further held that the acquired lands were perennially and seasonally irrigated lands, in view of the same the Reference Court was of the opinion that the amount of compensation would be double and one and half times of the dry crop land. In respect of the same, it observed that the claimant was liable to seek compensation at the rate of Rs.2, 00,000/- per hectare for lands of Survey No. 28, Survey no. 75 and for land bearing Survey no. 30. Thus, this Court was of the view that if failed to find any legal infirmity in the findings of the Reference Court.
Lastly with respect to the trees present in the acquired lands, the Court noted that beside the orange trees, the first respondent herein had other fruit bearing trees as well. However, the respondent claimed the rate of Rs.7, 870/- per orange tree. To buttress his claim, he took into account the view of the Horticulturist as well. Keeping in mind the view of the Horticulturist, the Reference Court was pleased to grant compensation for the orange trees in various survey numbers as stated in the impugned order. In respect of the same, this Court opined that the aforesaid findings qua the orange trees cannot be disturbed.
Thus, in light of the above stated observations, the Court concluded by stating that the Reference Court took into consideration all the necessary oral and documentary evidence while passing the award and thus the impugned order requires no intervention, the Court remarked.
Case name: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LOWER WARDHA PROJECT DIVISION WARDHA V. ARVIND SHESHRAO WANKHEDE AND ORS
Picture Source :