Bombay High Court
The State Of Maha. Thru. Collector ... vs Kishore Bhauraoji Gole on 27 April, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa1000.07.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1000 OF 2007
APPELLANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Yeotmal, Distt. Yeotmal.
Ori. Respondents
(On R.A.)
2. The Executive Engineer, Medicum
Project Division, Yeotmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works Division
No.1., Yeotmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT:
Ori. Claimant (On
ig Kishore Bhauraoji Gole, Aged about
adult, Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o
Pathard Gole, Tq. Ner, District
R.A.)
Yeotmal.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri P. D. Dharaskar, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 27
th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The learned counsel for the parties jointly
submit that instead of deciding the application for
grant of stay, the appeal itself can be taken up for
hearing. Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
fa1000.07.odt 2/5
2. The present appeal filed under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 takes exception to the
judgment of the Reference Court dated 19-3-2005
whereby compensation came to be enhanced in L.A.C.
No.1470/2004.
3. Land admeasuring 1 Hectare 63R situated at
Pathrad Gole, Tah. Ner, District Yavatmal was the
subject matter of acquisition. The notification under
Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 2-3-1995 and
the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 31-1-
1998. An amount of Rs.28,000/- per hectare was
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. He also
granted certain amounts for the trees, bandh and well.
4. Being aggrieved the respondent filed
reference under Section 18 of the said Act and by the
impugned judgment, the amount of compensation has
been enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for land.
Similarly, the compensation for the trees and bandh
have been partly enhanced. Being aggrieved the
present appeal has been filed.
5. It is jointly submitted by the learned Counsel
for the parties that in First Appeal No.480/2003 (The
fa1000.07.odt 3/5
State of Maharashtra and others vs. Dadaraoji
Pandurangji Gainar) decided on 22-6-2015 arising out
of acquisition proceedings based on the same
notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act, this
Court has maintained the amount of compensation
which was granted for the land. It is submitted that in
these circumstances in so far as the land is concerned,
the compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare is liable
to be maintained.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant,
however, submitted that in so far as the claim for
trees, well and bandh is concerned, the same has been
granted by the Reference Court without proper
appreciation of the evidence on record. It is submitted
that the compensation in that regard is required to be
reduced.
7. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted
that the claimant had examined two experts in support
of his claim for compensation. A reference is made to
the deposition of the expert examined below Exhibit-
65 and the valuation report at Exhibit-67. Similarly,
the reference is also made to the deposition of an
fa1000.07.odt 4/5
approved valuer at Exhibit-67-A in so far as the
compensation for the bandh is concerned.
8. The following point arises for consideration:
Whether any case is made out to interfere
with the award of the Reference Court?
9. Perusal of the judgment in First Appeal
No.480/2003 indicates that the proceedings arose out
of the same notification issued under Section 4 of the
said Act and the land is also from the same village.
Hence, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-
per hectare which is granted for the acquired land is
liable to be maintained.
10. In so far as compensation for the trees is
concerned, the same is based on the report submitted
at Exhibit-67. The number of fruit bearing trees can be
gathered from the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 46 & 47.
It is on that basis that different rates had been granted
for big, small and very small trees. The amounts that
are granted are Rs.3,000/- per tree for big trees,
Rs.2,500/- for somewhat smaller trees and Rs.400/-
per tree for the saplings. Considering the nature of
evidence on record, it cannot be said that the amounts
fa1000.07.odt 5/5
as granted are on a higher side.
Similarly, the amount granted for the bandh
is on the basis of the reports at Exhibits 71 & 72 and
an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been granted.
11. The point as framed is answered by holding
that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
award.
12. In view of aforesaid, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal in L.A.C. No.1470/2004 is confirmed.
The first appeal stands dismissed with no order as to
costs. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the
amount of compensation deposited by the appellant.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
