Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Shri Ganpat Shravan Shivarkar ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
902-FA-J-236-15 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.236 OF 2015
1. State of Maharashtra
Thr. Collector, Amravati.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Wardha Project No.4, Amravati.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Upper Wardha Canal Division No.2.
Dhamangaon Railway, Dist. Amravati.
4. V.I.D.C. thr. its Executive Engineer,
Lower Wardha Project, Wardha. ... Appellants.
-vs-
Ganpat Shravan Shivarkar,
Aged about 60 yrs. Occ. Agriculture (Dead)
1. Shripat Ganpat Shivarkar
Aged about 60 yrs.
2. Sadashiv Ganpat Shivarkar
Aged about 45 years.
3. Shobha Vithobaji Mandhare,
Aged about 53 yrs.
4. Kanta Dnyaneshwar Shivarkar
Aged about 40 yrs.
5. Raju Dnyneshwar Shivarkar
Aged about 23 yrs.
6. Kavita Dnyaneshwar Shivarkar
Aged about 22 yrs., Agriculture,
7. Prabhakar Dnyaneshwar Shivarkar,
Aged about 19 yrs.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:09:19 :::
902-FA-J-236-15 2/5
All the legal heirs r/o Shidodi,
Tq. Dhamangaon Railway, Dist. Amravati. ... Respondents.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants.
Ms Sapkal, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : May 06, 2016
Oral Judgment :
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is
taken up for final hearing as the issue involved therein stands concluded in
view of adjudication in F.A. No.159 of 2007.
Land admeasuring 1H 92 R of survey No.49/1 and land
admeasuring 0.71 HR from survey No.8/5, both situated at village Shidodi
were acquired for submergence of lower Wardha project. The notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, the said Act) is
dated 22/11/1995 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on
21/08/1999. An amount of Rs.41,000/- per hectare came to be granted by
the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants filed reference under Section 18
of the said Act and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation @
1,00,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land and Rs.60,000/- per hectare for
the dry crop land. Being aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal.
2. Ms N. P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
902-FA-J-236-15 3/5
appellants submitted that in so far as the dry crop land is concerned, an
amount of Rs.60,000/- per hectare has been found to be reasonable
compensation by this Court in F.A. No.159 of 2007. It is however submitted
that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land is on a
higher side. Similarly, the compensation granted for the orange trees
approximately @ Rs.1600/- per tree is also on a higher side. It is therefore
submitted that considering the evidence on record, the amount of
enhancement was not justified and the impugned judgment was liable to be
modified.
3. Ms Sapkal, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7
supported the impugned judgment. She submitted that as the amount of
Rs.60,000/- per hectare for the dry crop land has been found to be
reasonable, the amount granted for irrigated land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per
hectare is reasonable. Similarly, the amount granted for the orange trees is
after considering the horticulture report and the rate granted per tree is
reasonable.
4. The following point arises for consideration :
" Whether any case is made out to interfere with impugned
judgment ?"
I have heard the respective counsel for the parties. It is not in
902-FA-J-236-15 4/5
dispute that with regard to dry crop land from the same village which has
been acquired under the same notification, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- per
hectare has been found to be reasonable in F.A. No.159 of 2007. Hence in so
far as 0.72 R land from survey No.8/5 is concerned, the same is liable to be
maintained. In so far as the irrigated land is concerned, the material on
record indicates that 1H 92 R land was irrigated and oranges were being
grown therein. The report of the horticulture expert at Exhibit-57 also
supports the stand of the claimants. As the amount of Rs.60,000/- per
hectare is considered reasonable for dry crop land, the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- granted only for 0.85 R land appears to be reasonable. The
Reference Court has granted this rate only for 85 R land from the total land
admeasuring 1H 92 R.
5. In so far as the compensation for the orange trees is concerned,
though the same was claimed for 325 trees, the Reference Court has taken
into consideration the report at Exhibit-57 and has concluded that there were
only 304 orange trees having age of 6-8 years. On that basis, the conclusion
@ Rs.1600/- per tree approximately appears to be reasonable. The
enhancement granted in that regard is of Rs.82639/-. It cannot be said that
the Reference Court has granted higher compensation than what was
required to be granted in the facts of the case. The point as framed is
answered by holding that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
902-FA-J-236-15 5/5
judgment.
6. In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated 07/03/2013 in L.A.C.
No.132 of 2000 stands confirmed. The first appeal is dismissed with no
order as to costs.
The amount deposited by the appellant is permitted to be
withdrawn by the claimants.
ig JUDGE
Asmita
