M.I.D.C. Amravati vs Leelabai Shriram Nimdevkar & 2 Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1424 Bom

    202-J-FA-27-07                                                                         1/6


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                   
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO.27 OF 2007




                                                           
    Maharashtra Industrial Development 
    Through its Chief Executive Officer 




                                                          
    having its office at Marol Industrial Estate, 
    Andheri East, Mumbai and having its 
    Regional Office at By-pass Road, 
    Amravati.                                                  ... Appellant. 




                                                
    -vs-

    1.  Leelabai Shriram Nimdevkar
         Aged about 64 years, 
                                      
         R/o Amravati, Dist. Amravati. 
                                     
    2.  State of Maharashtra,
         Through its Collector, Amravati. 
             


    3.  Land Acquisition Officer cum
         Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati.                     ... Respondents. 
          



    Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant. 
    Shri Suryawanshi, Advocate h/f Shri P. A. Rajurkar, Advocate for respondent 





    No.1. 
    Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 


                                                  CORAM  : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : APRIL 12, 2016

Oral Judgment :

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court

dated 16/09/2006 in L.A.C. No.241 of 1999 whereby in proceedings under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act), the

amount of compensation has been partly enhanced.

202-J-FA-27-07 2/6

Land admeasuring 1H 80R of village Talkhanda bearing Gat

No.272 was acquired for the development of industrial area. The Land

Acquisition Officer by his award dated 20/03/1997 granted compensation of

Rs.45,285/- per hectare for land admeasuring 1H 75R. For the remaining

0.05 R Pot Kharab land, Rs.1500/- per hectare was granted. Compensation

was also granted for various fruit bearing trees and teak saplings. The

respondent No.1 not being satisfied with the amount of compensation sought

enhancement by filing reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The

Reference Court maintained the amount of compensation granted for the

land. It however, enhanced the compensation for the fruit bearing trees and

teak saplings. The appellant being aggrieved by said adjudication has filed

the present appeal.

2. Shri M. M. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the enhancement granted for the fruit bearing trees and the

teak saplings is without any justifiable evidence. By referring to the 7/12

extract at Exhibit-42, it was submitted that there were only 365 orange trees

in the acquired land. Similarly there were only 100 teak saplings as

mentioned in the said document. However, the Reference Court granted

compensation for 685 orange trees and 412 teak saplings. It was therefore

submitted that in absence of any evidence that there were 685 orange trees

and 412 teak saplings, compensation could not have been granted for the

202-J-FA-27-07 3/6

same. It was then submitted that the compensation granted for the orange

trees and teak saplings was on higher side and was granted without any

evidence. It was therefore submitted that the amounts granted by the Land

Acquisition Officer were proper not requiring any further enhancement.

3. Shri Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 on

the other hand supported the impugned judgment. According to him, at

Exhibit-5 which is the 'E' statement it had been mentioned that there were

685 orange trees and 412 teak saplings. He further submitted that the

enhancement in the amount of compensation has been rightly granted by

the Reference Court after considering the amounts granted for the orange

trees in Gat No.273 which was adjoining the acquired land. It was therefore

submitted that there was no case made out to interfere with the impugned

judgment.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have

perused the records of the case and I have also gone through the impugned

judgment. The following point arises for consideration :

" Whether any case has been made out to interfere with the

impugned judgment ? "

The Reference Court has maintained the compensation which was

granted for the acquired land. The enhancement that has been granted by

202-J-FA-27-07 4/6

the Reference Court is mainly in respect of the orange trees and teak

saplings. The appellant has disputed the number of orange trees and teak

saplings. In the 7/12 extract at Exhibit-42 which was placed on record by

the respondent No.1, it has been stated that there were 250 orange trees in

the year 1991-92. Thereafter in the year 1992-93 there were in all 355

orange trees. This figure has been maintained for the subsequent year.

Though in the document at Exhibit-5 which is the E-statement, it has been

stated that there were 685 orange trees, considering the figure of trees

mentioned in Exhibit-42 which was the document filed by the respondent

No.1 herself, the figures maintained therein deserve to be accepted. The

Reference Court though referred to the document at Exhibit-42 preferred to

accept the figure mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer. However

considering the fact that the 7/12 extracts were filed by the respondent No.1

herself, the figures therein were required to be accepted. It is not the case of

respondent No.1 that the figures mentioned therein were wrong. Hence the

respondent No.1 would be entitled for compensation for 355 orange trees.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted a sum of Rs.567/- per

orange tree. It was found that Rs.706/- per orange tree was granted as

compensation in respect of adjoining Gat No.273 which was owned by the

son of respondent No.1. Hence the Reference Court granted a sum of

Rs.750/- per tree as compensation. In this background it cannot be said that

202-J-FA-27-07 5/6

this enhancement is on higher side for being reduced.

6. In so far as the teak saplings are concerned, it has been mentioned

in the E-statement that there were 412 saplings. However in Exhibit-42 it is

mentioned that there were 100 saplings. Hence for similar reasons, as stated

in paragraph 4 hereinabove, the figure mentioned in the 7/12 extract at

Exhibit-42 deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 would

be entitled for compensation for 100 teak saplings.

The Land Acquisition Officer granted an amount of Rs.30 per

sapling. This figure has been enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.100/-

per sapling. Considering the fact that the compensation was being granted

for teak saplings, this amount is liable to be maintained. Hence the

respondent No.1 would be entitled for compensation of Rs.100 per sapling

for 100 teak saplings. The point as framed is answered by holding that the

judgment of the Reference Court is required to be modified in the manner

stated hereinafter.

7. In view of aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed :

(i) The judgment dated 16/09/2006 in L.A.C. No.241 of 1999 is

partly modified. It is held that the respondent No.1 is entitled for

compensation @ Rs.750/- per orange tree for 365 orange trees.

Similarly the respondent No.1 is entitled to receive Rs.100 per

202-J-FA-27-07 1/6

sapling for 100 teak saplings. Rest of the award passed by the

Reference Court stands confirmed.

(ii) Subject to payment of proper court fees, the remaining amount of

compensation shall be paid to the respondent No.1.

First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

                                          ig                                      JUDGE
                                        
               
            






    Asmita