Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Manoj Dnyaneshwar Pardake And 2 ... on 27 April, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa704.13.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.704 OF 2013
APPELLANT: Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through its Executive
Engineer, Bembala project Division,
Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Manoj Dnyaneshwar Pardake, aged
about 41 years,
occupation:agriculturist, r/o Dighi,
Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal.
ig 2. The State of Maharashtra represented
by the Collector, Yavatmal, Tq. And
District Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.1,
Yavatmal.
S/Shri S. G. Jagtap & S. S. Godbole, Advocates for the appellants.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 &
3.
Shri A. B. Nakshane, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
XOB NO.50 OF 2015
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.704 OF 2013
CROSS-OBJECTOR: 1. Manoj Dyneshwar Pardakhe, Age-43
Occ-Agriculturist, R/o - Dighi, Tq:
(On r.a.)
Babhulgaon, Dist - Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:32 :::
fa704.13.odt 2/6
RESPONDENTS: 1. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through its Executive
(On R.A.)
Engineer, Bembala project Division,
Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition, Minor
Irrigation Works No.1, Yavatmal.
Shri A. B. Nakshane, Advocate for Cross-Objector.
S/Shri S. G. Jagtap & S.S. Godbole, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 &
3.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 27
th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The cross-objector has filed pursis dated
5-4-2016 stating therein that in view of the judgment
in First Appeal No.1062/2014 decided on 22-3-2016,
the present appeal as well as the cross-objections can
be disposed of.
2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties, the appeal and the cross-objections are
taken up for final hearing.
3. Lands admeasuring 2 hectares 94 R of village
Dighi, Tah. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal bearing Gat
No.147 were the subject matter of acquisition in L.A.C.
fa704.13.odt 3/6
No.8/47/2003-04. The notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (for short, the said
Act) is dated 14-8-2003 and the award was passed on
31-5-2005. The Land Acquisition Officer granted
compensation @ Rs.78,253/- per hectare for the land
and Rs.11,240/- for two mango trees. Being
aggrieved, the claimant filed L.A.C. No.742/2006
seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation.
The Reference Court by its judgment dated 18-11-
2010 enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs.1,75,000/- per hectare for the land and Rs.20,000/-
for two mango trees. The acquiring body being
aggrieved has filed First Appeal No.703/2013 while
the respondent No.1 has filed Cross Objection
No.50/2015 seeking further enhancement.
4. In First Appeal No.1062/2014, land situated
at village Dighi was acquired on the basis of
notification dated 14-8-2003 which is identical to the
notification under which the present land has been
acquired. This Court had held in the aforesaid appeal
that the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare was fair
compensation for the acquired land. On this basis, it is
fa704.13.odt 4/6
submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that
the compensation in so far as the land is concerned
can be determined.
In so far as the mango trees are concerned, it
is submitted by Shri S. G. Jagtap, the learned Counsel
for the appellant that the amount granted by the
Reference Court is on a higher side and is not based on
sufficient evidence. On the other hand, it is submitted
by Shri Nakshane, the learned Counsel for the
claimant that the valuer was examined at Exhibit-35
and his valuation report at Exhibit-36 was filed on
record. It was found that the trees were aged 24 years
and they were in good condition. It is, therefore,
submitted that the claimant was entitled for
Rs.20,000/- per tree as prayed for the acquired land.
5. The following point arise for consideration:
Whether the judgment of the Reference
Court deserves to be interfered with?
6. In so far as the compensation for the land is
concerned, considering the fact that an amount of
Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare has been granted for land
acquired under the same notification, identical amount
fa704.13.odt 5/6
can be awarded for the land in the present appeal.
Hence, for the reasons mentioned in First Appeal
No.1062/2014, it is held that the claimant would be
entitled for an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare for
the acquired land.
7. In so far as two mango trees are concerned,
the Reference Court has granted compensation @
Rs.14,000/- per tree. Considering the report of the
expert at Exhibit-36 and the fact that the said mango
trees were aged about 24 years, after deducting some
amount towards the maintenance of the said trees, an
amount of Rs.12,000/- per tree appears to be
reasonable compensation. This amount is granted after
considering the report of the Valuer at Exhibit-36. In
so far as the Ber trees are concerned, the amount
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer stands
maintained.
Hence, the point as framed is answered by
holding that the award passed by the Reference Court
deserves to be modified in the manner as stated herein
below.
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the following
fa704.13.odt 6/6
order is passed:
(1) The judgment of the Reference Court dated
18-11-2010 in L.A.C. No.742/2006 is partly modified.
It is held that the claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. The
claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.12,000/- per
mango tree. The rest of the award stands confirmed.
(2) The first appeal and the cross-objections are
disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.
(3) The amount due and payable to the claimant
shall be paid by the appellant in First Appeal
No.704/2013 within a period of six months from
today.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
