Bombay High Court
Chief General Manager Wcl vs Sudam Hansaji Raut & 2 Other on 2 May, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa818.08.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.818 OF 2008
APPELLANT: Chief General Manager, Western
Coalfields Limited, Jaripatka, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Shri Sudam S/o Hansuji Raut
through Lrs
(appeal agates
against respondent
No.1.)
1(a) Shri Rishinath Sudamji Raut, Aged
about 45 years, R/o Bajaj Colony,
2/3, WCL, Saoner Sub Area Colony,
Tahsil Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
1(b) Shri Prakash Sudamji Raut, Aged
Adult, R/o Ward No.1, Village
Kandri, Tah. Parseoni, District -
Nagpur.
1(c) Smt. Sunitabai Gautamji
Gaurkhede, Aged about 30 years,
R/o Uni Univarta-69, Samta
Colony, Raipur, Chhatisgarh.
1(d) Smt. Indubai Bhimraoji Raut,l Aged
about 45 years, R/o 182, Mahadev
Totta Nagar, Behind Mind Care,
Near Bengali Square, Indore- 452
001 (M.P.)
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 the
::: Uploaded on - 18/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:06 :::
fa818.08.odt 2/4
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 31-01-2008 in L.A.C. No.74 of 1998.
2. Land admeasuring 1 H 20R bearing Survey
No.207/1 from 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.57,027/- was granted for
the land and Rs.18,350/- was granted for fruit bearing
trees 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.
fa818.08.odt 3/4
3. In the reference filed by the claimants, the
Reference Court by its judgment dated 31-1-2008
enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of
Rs.3000/- each for 16 orange trees of superior quality
and Rs.1000/- each for 95 orange trees of inferior
quality. Rs.7000/- each was granted for two mango
trees, Rs.1500/- each for 14 guava trees and Rs.2000/-
each for two black beri trees.
ig It is not in dispute that the present
acquisition arises out of the same notification issued
under Section 4 of the said Act which was the subject
matter of adjudication in L.A.C. No.74/1999. The
amounts granted therein by way of enhancement for
the fruit bearing and other trees have been maintained
in First Appeal No.786/2006 decided today.
Considering the aforesaid and as it is not in dispute
that no expert was examined in the present case for
seeking enhancement of the trees, the amount of
compensation granted for the trees in L.A.C.
No.74/1999 would have to be granted in the present
proceedings also.
5. Hence, for the reasons recorded in First
fa818.08.odt 4/4
Appeal No.786/2006 decided today, the following
order is passed:
(1) The judgment dated 31-1-2008 in L.A.C.
No.74/1998 is partly modified. It is held that the
claimant would be entitled for amount of Rs.2000/-
per tree for 16 grown up orange trees. He would be
entitled for Rs.400/- for 95 small orange trees,
Rs.3000/- per tree for two mango trees, Rs.800/- per
tree for 14 guava trees and Rs.1000/- each for two
black beri trees.
(2) The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs. The amounts
deposited by the appellant are permitted to be
withdrawn in accordance with the aforesaid judgment.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
