Chief Gen. Manager, W.C.L vs Keshavrao Bholaji Agre & 2 Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2247 Bom

                                                                         fa1130-1131.07
                                            1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                               
                              NAGPUR.

                       FIRST   APPEAL     NO.   1130     OF     2007




                                                       
                                          WITH
                         FIRST  APPEAL  NO.   1131   OF    2007




                                                      
                          FIRST  APPEAL  NO.   1130   OF   2007


    Chief General Manager,
    W.C.L. Jariparka, Nagpur.                                       APPELLANT.




                                          
                              ig          VERSUS


    1] Keshvrao Bholaji Agre,
                            
    aged 78 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist,
    R/o Gondegaon Tah.Parshioni,
    Distt. Nagpur. 

    2] The State of Maharashtra 
      


    through Collector Nagpur. 
   



    3] The Special Land Acquisition
    Officer, Pench Project No. 1
    Nagpur.                                                         RESPONDENTS.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2007

Chief General Manager, W.C.L. Jariparka, Nagpur. APPELLANT.

VERSUS

1] Jagannath Thumbaji Gajbhiye, aged 67 yrs., Occu.Agriculturist, R/o Gondegaon, Tah.Parshioni, Distt. Nagpur.

fa1130-1131.07

2] The State of Maharashtra

through Collector Nagpur.

3] The Special Land Acquisition

Nagpur. RESPONDENTS.

Shri C. S. Samudra, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Shri H. R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 2 & 3 in F. A. No. 1130 of 2007.

Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 2 & 3 in F. A.

No. 1131 of 2007.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   MAY  04, 2016.
                             
    ORAL JUDGMENT: 
      

Since both these appeals filed under Section 54 of the land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) take exception to the

enhancement of compensation granted with regard to lands situated at

village Gondegaon tahsil Parshioni, district Nagpur under the same

notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act, they are being decided by

this common judgment.

2] In First Appeal No. 1130 of 2007 land admeasuring 0.83 R from

field Survey No. 59/2 and 3 H 73 R from field Survey No. 61 was acquired by

issuing Notification under Section 4 of the said Act on 25.04.1993. The land

Acquisition Officer passed his award on 25.06.1996 and granted

compensation for the lands as well as the trees standing therein. Being

aggrieved the claimant filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act.

fa1130-1131.07

The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation in so far as the

trees standing on the said lands are concerned.

3] In First Appeal No. 1131 of 2007 land admeasuring 0.93 R from

field Survey No. 11 from the same village referred to above was acquired

under the same Notification. Even in said appeal the Reference Court has

enhanced the compensation only for the trees standing on the acquired land.

Shri C. S. Samudra, the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals

submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court with regard

to forest trees was without any evidence in that regard. He submitted that

the Reference Court referred to its judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 74

of 1999 and enhanced the compensation in respect of orange trees.

According to him the Land Acquisition Officer had granted an amount of

Rs.43/- each for the forest trees and this was enhanced to Rs. 300/- for each

forest tree. He referred to the evidence on record and submitted that there

was no justification to grant enhancement in that regard. He however

submitted that in so far as the orange, guava and other fruit bearing trees are

concerned the amounts granted therein are as per the compensation granted

in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 which award has been confirmed in

First Appeal No. 786 of 2006. He, therefore, submitted that the

compensation granted for the forest trees deserves to be reduced.

Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the claimant in both

the appeals supported the impugned judgment. According to him the

enhancement by the Reference Court was on the basis of the enhancement

fa1130-1131.07

granted for the fruit bearing trees. He submitted that as the number of trees

were not disputed the amount of Rs. 300/- per forest tree was reasonable

amount of compensation. He did not dispute the fact that the adjudication in

Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 has been confirmed in First Appeal No.

786 of 2006.

4] Shri H. R. Dhumale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3 in First Appeal No. 1130 of 2007 and

Ms. N. P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for

respondent nos. 2 and 3 in First Appeal No. 1131 of 2007.

5] The following point arises for consideration in the appeals:

Whether any case has been made out to interfere with the award of the Reference Court?

6] With assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have

perused the record and considered the respective submissions. The record

indicates that in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer an amount

of Rs. 43/- per forest tree came to be granted. The Reference Court has

enhanced this amount to Rs. 300/- per forest tree. The claimants in both the

appeals had examined themselves. However, there is no specific evidence led

by them to justify enhancement in so far as forest trees are concerned.

Perusal of the impugned judgment indicate that the Reference Court has

accepted the adjudication in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 while

determining the compensation for the orange trees, guava trees and other

fruit bearing trees. There is no discussion whatsoever with regard to

fa1130-1131.07

enhancement for the forest trees. It is not in dispute that in Land Acquisition

Case No. 74 of 1999 no forest trees were standing on the acquired lands.

Thus merely on the basis of the adjudication in Land Acquisition Case No. 74

of 1999 it cannot be said that the claimants were straightway entitled for the

amount of Rs. 300/- per forest tree.

Considering proportionate enhancement granted by the

Reference Court with reference to the fruit bearing trees and the number of

forest trees not being in dispute, an amount of Rs. 100/- per forest tree

appears to be reasonable compensation for the same. In so far as

compensation for the fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same being based

on adjudication in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999, there is no reason

to interfere with the said amount of compensation. The point as framed is

answered by holding the amount of compensation for the forest trees is

required to be reduced to Rs. 100/- per forest tree.

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

1] The judgment dated 26.06.2007 in Land Acquisition Case No.

111 of 1998 is partly modified. The claimant would be entitled to receive

compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per tree for 86 forest trees. Rest of the

award passed by the Reference Court stands confirmed. First Appeal No.

1130 of 2007 is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

2] The judgment dated 26.06.2007 in Land Acquisition Case No.

116 of 1998 is partly modified. The claimant is entitled to receive

compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per tree for 13 forest trees. Rest of the

fa1130-1131.07

award passed by the Reference Court stands confirmed. First Appeal No.

1131 of 2007 is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.

3] The respective parties shall bear their own costs. The

claimants would be entitled to receive the amount of compensation in terms

of the aforesaid adjudication.

JUDGE

svk