Chief General Manager Wcl Nagpur vs Smt Sitabai Keshavrao Agre Thr Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2248 Bom

                                                                               fa1152.08
                                            1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                              
                              NAGPUR.

                       FIRST   APPEAL     NO.  1152     OF     2008




                                                      
    Chief General Manager,




                                                     
    Western Coalfields Limited,
    Jaripatka, Nagpur.                                             APPELLANT.


                                         VERSUS




                                          
    Sitabai Keshvrao Agre
    (Dead) through its legal
                             
    representatives:
                            
    1]Keshorao Bholaji Agre

    2] Gajanan Keshvrao Agre
      


    3] Dhanraj Keshvrao Agre
   



    4] Tirathaprakash Agre

    5] Shakuntala Sitaram Sarode





    6] Vachlabai Omprakash
    Vishwakarma

    7] Sushila Anirudha 
    Vishwakarma 





    All R/o village Gondegaon,
    Tah. Parshivni, Distt. Nagpur. 

    8] The State of Maharashtra
    through Collector Nagpur. 

    9] The Special land Acquisition 
    Officer, Pench Project No. 1,
    Nagpur.                                                        RESPONDENTS.

fa1152.08

Shri C. S. Samudra, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 7. Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 8 & 9.

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




                                                               
    ORAL JUDGMENT: 




                                                

This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the

Reference Court dated 18.01.2008 in Land Acquisition Case No. 106 of

1998.

2] The lands admeasuring 1 H 77 R from Survey No. 59/1 and 1 H

41 R from Survey No. 62/2 situated at village Gondegaon tahsil Parseoni

district Nagpur were the subject matter of acquisition. The Notification

under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 25.04.1993 and the award was

passed on 25.06.1996. As the claimants were aggrieved by the amount of

compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer they filed a reference

under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court granted amount of Rs.

1,00,000/- per hectare for the lands, Rs. 5000/- for one tamarind tree and Rs.

1500/- for one Bori tree. Being aggrieved by an amount of compensation

granted the present appeal has been filed.

3] Shri C. S. Samudra, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the challenge for enhancement was in respect of what is

granted for the trees. He submitted that in para 28 of the impugned

fa1152.08

judgment the Reference Court observed that though there was no evidence

on record to justify enhancement, Rs. 5000/- for the tamarind tree and Rs.

1500/- for the Bori tree was being granted. He submitted that in First Appeal

No. 786 of 2006 relating to acquisition from the same village arising out of

Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999, an amount of Rs. 2500/- for one

tamarind tree has been maintained. He submitted that even the

enhancement for the Bori tree was unjustified.

4] Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.

1 to 7 supported the impugned judgment. According to him the amount of

enhancement granted by the Reference Court was reasonable and the same

did not deserve to be interfered with. He however, did not dispute the

adjudication in First Appeal No. 786 of 2006.

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

appears for the respondent nos. 8 and 9.

5] The following point arises for consideration:

Whether the award of the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with?

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

perused the impugned judgment. The evidence on record does not indicate

that any evidence was led for seeking enhancement for the tamarind tree or

Bori tree. This fact is recorded in para 28 of the impugned judgment.

Considering the fact that in First Appeal No. 786 of 2006 the arising out of

Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 wherein the amount of Rs. 2500/- for

the Tamarind tree has been granted, same amount deserves to be granted in

fa1152.08

the present case. The amount of Rs. 5000/- for the tamarind tree as granted

by the Reference Court is liable to be reduced to Rs. 2500/- for the same.

However, in so far as Bori tree is concerned the amount of Rs.

1500/- for the same appears to be reasonable. The point as framed is

answered by holding that the judgment of the Reference Court is required to

be partly modified.

6] In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated 18.01.2008 in Land

Acquisition case No. 106 of 1998 is partly modified. The claimants are

entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2500/- for one tamarind tree. Rest of

the award passed by the Reference Court stands confirmed. The First Appeal

is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. The claimants

are entitled to receive the amount of compensation in terms of aforesaid

judgment.

JUDGE

svk

fa1152.08