Bombay High Court
Hariram Maroti Waikar vs State Of ... on 5 April, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa495.04.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.495 OF 2004
Hariram s/o Maroti Waikar
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation Cultivator,
Resident of Chandai,
Tq. Karanja (Lad),
District Washim. ....... APPELLANT
ig ...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Washim. ....... RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate holding for Shri R.L. Khapre,
Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th APRIL, 2016.
DATE: 5
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] By issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act published on 06.02.1997, the land Survey No.198
admeasuring 3 H and 3 R and Survey No.197 admeasuring 1 H and 00 R
were acquired for the purposes of construction of Chandai Dam.
The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting compensation at
fa495.04.J.odt 2/4
the rate of Rs.53,200/- for the dry crop land and of Rs.79,800/- for the
irrigated land. In the Land Acquisition Case No.202 of 2003 the
Reference Court acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has
granted rate of Rs.1,02,969/- per hectare for the entire land acquired.
Whereas for 500 Mosambi trees the rate was granted of Rs.100/- per
tree. The claimant is before this Court claiming enhancement of
compensation. Shri Kavimandan, the learned counsel submits that the
Reference Court has also failed to consider the claim for compensation in
respect of 1 Jambhul tree and 25 Babhul trees and 10 Bor trees.
2] Whether the claimant has established two points are as
under:
[i] Whether the claimant has established claim for
compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per hectare and
whether the Reference Court was right in awarding the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,02,969/- for the land
acquired?
[ii] Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation in respect of 500 Mosambi trees, 1 Jambhul
tree and the other Babhul trees and Bor trees?
fa495.04.J.odt 3/4
3] The Reference Court has relied upon the sale-deed at Exhibit
25 in respect of the portion of the same land which was acquired.
The sale-deed at Exhibit 25 dated 25.05.1995 is reflecting the market
rate of Rs.80,000/- per hectare. The agreement to sale entered into on
12.01.1994 is also placed on record at Exhibit 26. Perusal of both these
documents at Exhibits 25 and 26 clearly reflects that it was a transaction
in respect of sale of irrigated land. There cannot be any better evidence
than that of the sale of the portion of the same land. The Reference
Court has granted 10% increase per year and has arrived at the market
value of Rs.1,02,969/- per hectare. No fault can be found with such a
view taken by the Reference Court and the claim at the rate of Rs.2 lacs
per hectare is not at all substantiated.
4] In respect of 500 Mosambi trees, the finding is that the age
of trees is of two years and the sowing expense of Rs.100/- per tree has
been awarded. Even if it is considered that on the date of issuance of
notification under Section 4, the trees were 4 years of age, the same had
not matured for bearing fruits, and hence, the claim for compensation at
the rate of Rs.4000/- per tree is not at all substantiated. There is also no
evidence regarding the existence of Babhul trees and Bor trees, but there
exists evidence regarding 1 Jambhul tree aged 5 years. At the most the
claimant would not be entitled for Rs.100/- on this count.
fa495.04.J.odt 4/4
5] In view of above, I do not find any substance in the appeal,
the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
