Bombay High Court
Chief Gen Manager, Wcl vs Bapurao Umrao Landage And 2 Ors on 2 May, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa786.06.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.786 OF 2006
APPELLANT: Chief General Manager, Western
Coalfields Limited, Jaripatka, Nagpur.
APPLICANT
(On R.A.)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Bapurao S/o Umrao Landage, Aged
about 60 years, Occupation-
(On R.A.)
Agriculturist, R/o Gondegaon,
Tahsil:Parseoni, District - Nagpur.
ig 2. The State of Maharashtra Through
Collector, Nagpur.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project-1, Nagpur.
Shri C. S. Samudra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the legal representatives of
respondent No.1.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 &
3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 2nd
MAY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, the said Act) takes
exception to the judgment of the Reference Court
dated 29-11-2005 in L.A.C. No.74 of 1999.
2. Land admeasuring 1 H 54R from Survey
fa786.06.odt 2/5
No.127 at village Gondegaon, Tah. Parshivni, District
Nagpur was the subject matter of the acquisition. The
notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated
25-4-1993. The award was passed on 25-6-1996. An
amount of Rs.94,691/- was granted for the land and
Rs.18,350/- was granted for fruit bearing and other
trees. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed reference
under Section 18 of the said Act and by the impugned
award, the compensation was partly enhanced in so
far as the fruit bearing trees were concerned. No
enhancement was granted for the acquired land.
3. Shri C. S. Samudra, the learned Counsel for
the appellant submitted that the enhancement granted
for the trees was without any sufficient evidence. It
was submitted that the claimants had examined an
horticulturist who had submitted his report at Exhibit-
25. This expert had, however, admitted that he had
not inspected any of the trees. According to the
learned Counsel, the enhancement granted was,
without sufficient evidence and, therefore, the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in that regard
deserves to be restored.
fa786.06.odt 3/5
4. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel for
the respondent No.1 supported the impugned award.
According to him, the Reference Court had rightly
considered the evidence of the expert who in turn had
relied upon the rates which were prevailing at the
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur for
granting enhancement. According to him, no
compensation has been enhanced for about 94 small
orange trees and the enhancement granted for 154
grown up trees was not on the higher side. He
submitted that in absence of any other contrary
evidence on record, there was no reason to interfere
with the enhancement in the amount of compensation.
5. The following point arises for consideration:
Whether any case is made out for
interference with the judgment of the Reference
Court.?
6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel
for the parties, I have perused the records and I have
given due consideration to their submissions. The
Reference Court has not granted any enhancement for
the acquired land. The only enhancement granted is
fa786.06.odt 4/5
for the trees. The claimant had examined an expert
valuer - Dadan Borkar at Exhibit-16. The expert relied
upon his report at Exhibit-25. He admitted that the
price of fruits per kg was taken as per the report of the
Dy. Director of Horticulture. He, however, admitted
that he had not inspected the trees in question. This
evidence was considered by the Reference Court and
in para 10 thereof, it was observed that besides 154
grown up orange trees, there were about 94 small
orange trees. It was then found that these 154 orange
trees were categorized into two groups, one in the age
group of 15 years valued at Rs.2807.78 and other 50
orange trees @ Rs.2361.54 per tree. On that basis,
after taking average deduction, an amount of
Rs.2000/- per orange tree was granted for 154 trees.
No compensation was granted for 94 small orange
trees. It has been observed that the rates prevailing
during said period at the Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Nagpur were taken into consideration. As
there was no other contrary material on record this
amount came to be granted.
7. The consideration by the Reference Court in
fa786.06.odt 5/5
para 10 of its judgment indicates the manner in which
the enhancement has been granted. There is no
enhancement granted for 94 small trees. What is
granted for 154 orange trees is based on the average
between the higher value of Rs.2807.78 and lower
value of Rs.2361.54. The amount of Rs.2000/- per
orange tree in this background, therefore, appears to
be reasonable.
ig The compensation granted for the other
lemon trees, mango trees, guava trees and for
tamarind trees also appears to be reasonable and not
on higher side. The guesswork applied by the
Reference Court does not appear to be arbitrary to
warrant interference. The point as framed is
accordingly answered by holding that there is no
reason to interfere with the judgment of the Reference
Court.
9. In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated
29-11-2005 in L.A.C. No.74/1999 stands confirmed.
The first appeal stands dismissed with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
