On 10th October 2022, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in a single judge bench comprising of Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that the Similarly Situated persons covered by the very same notification may not be discriminated. (Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project, Wardha, Tah. & Dist. Wardha. V. Manik Shamrao Chore and Other)
Facts of the Case:
The lands of the claimant were compulsorily acquired by the State Government for submergence of the Lower Wardha Project u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which were also the basis of his income source. Being aggrieved that the acquiring body awarded a meager compensation and also failed to consider the real market value of the land, orange trees and the location of the land, he filed a reference before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha, but received the amount of compensation as granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The claim made before the reference Court was that the land be valued @ Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare and each orange tree be valued @ Rs.10,000/- in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- for the well. The total enhanced compensation claimed was Rs.42,00,000/-. The same was denied by the acquiring body considering the ready reckoner in respect of the price, value, location and other relevant factors. The reference court observed that neither the applicants nor the non-applicants have produced any of the sale instances of land and there was no record to show that potentiality of the lands making it no different than a dry crop land. Moreover, only 150 trees were fruit bearing. The value 3.13-hectare land of Survey No.456 was held to be Rs.7,76,240/- and value of 0.40 HR of land of Survey No.497 was held to be Rs.99,200/- and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation by Rs.11,49,126/- but there was no enhancement of compensation with regards to forest and Ber trees. Aggrieved by the same both the parties filed an appeal and cross objection.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the acquiring body submitted that “the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation without there being any sufficient evidence on record to support the same. The compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was after considering the various sale instances on record and the same was appropriately determined. In the absence of any substantial evidence to sustain the enhancement in the market value of the land, the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the claimant summitted that “his cross objection is only limited to the extent of the inadequate compensation with respect to the 150 orange trees.” While referring to the cases, D.Eswara Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project, Wardha Vs. Shantabai wd/o Dadaraoji Kale and Ors. and Anil s/o Namdeo Khonde Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., he said, “the hon’ble SC has emphasized that similarly situated persons covered by the very same notification may not be discriminated. This Court after considering the arguments of the acquiring body as well as the claimants have in an almost identical case with respect to the same notification under Section 4 dated 03.02.1999 and with respect to the same project, held that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.6,311/- per orange tree. Hence, same treatment should be given to the claimant herein.”
Observations and Judgement of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed while referring to the cases, D.Eswara Vs. Special Deputy Collector, and Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project, Wardha Vs. Shantabai wd/o Dadaraoji Kale and other, observed that “the land acquired in the present case is pursuant to notification dated 03.02.1999 under Section 4(1) of the said Act. With respect to lands under Survey No.456 and 497, acquired for the project, no interference is called for to the rate of Rs.2,48,000/- per hectare awarded by the Reference Court as undisputedly the lands are perennially irrigated lands. in the case of Anil s/o Namdeo Khonde Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. with respect to the same notification allowed the appeal of a claimant holding that the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation for orange trees @Rs.6,311/- per orange tree. As such, the 150 orange trees in question situated on the acquired land deserve similar treatment and cannot be discriminated. The cross objector is therefore, entitled to enhanced compensation for the 150 orange trees @ Rs.6,311/- per orange tree.”
The first appeal and cross objection was disposed with the terms that claimant will get Rs.6,311/- per orange tree within a period of six weeks.
Case: Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project, Wardha, Tah. & Dist. Wardha. V. Manik Shamrao Chore and Other
Citation: First Appeal No. 318 Of 2017 With Cross Objection No. 30 Of 2021
Bench: Justice Abhay Ahuja
Date: 10th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
