Shriram Namdeo Hoge vs State Of Maha Thr Collector
2017 Latest Caselaw 3892 Bom

                                    1                                    jfa150of06.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2006

      Shriram s/o. Namdeo Hoge,
      Aged about 65 years, Occ. Cultivator,
      R/o. Dahigaon, Tah. Chikhali,
      Dist. Buldhana                                         ... APPELLANT

                ..... VERSUS
                           .....

      The State of Maharashtra,
      through Collector, Buldhana                           ...RESPONDENT

      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
               Shri.P.B.Patil, Advocate for Appellant
              Smt. Shamsi Haidar, AGP for Respondent
       -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

               CORAM    :DR.SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI,  J.

               DATE       : JULY 3, 2017. 


      ORAL JUDGMENT    :

      1        The judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by

learned Civil Judge Senior Division Buldhana in L.A.C. No.

119 of 1995 is challenged in the appeal by the original

2 jfa150of06.odt

claimant on the ground that the amount of compensation

enhanced by the Reference Court is not at all adequate, fair

and just.

2 Facts of the appeal can be stated as under:

The land belonging to appellant bearing land Gut

No.4, out of which 4 hector, situate vilalge Dahigaon, Tal.

Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana was acquired for percolation tank,

by virtue of notification dated 8.7.1993. The LAO had

passed the award on 17.4.1995 granting compensation @

Rs. 28,000/- per hector for the land, Rs. 24,695/- towards

the trees standing in the land.

3 As per the grievance of the appellant, the

compensation awarded by the LAO was quite meager

considering the potentiality of the land and the income

which the appellant was deriving from it. It was also

submitted that the compensation awarded for the fruit trees

also very meager, having regard to the fact that 612 trees of

sweet lemon, Sitafal, Ramfal and mango trees were

3 jfa150of06.odt

standing in the land and they were irrigated from the water

in the well. The appellant, therefore, approached the

Reference Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

claiming enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs. 9 lakhs in respect of the fruit bearing trees and Rs.

1,50,000/- per hector towards acquired land.

4 This petition came to be resisted by the respondent

contending inter-alia that the amount of compensation

fixed by LAO is just, reasonable, fair as he has taken into

consideration all the factors and therefore, no interference

is warranted in the said award.

5 On these respective pleadings of the parties, the

Reference Court framed necessary issues. In support of his

case, appellant examined himself and produced various sale

instances and the receipts of Agriculture Produce Market

Committee. Further he also examined one witness by name

Ramkrushna to prove the registered saledeed at Exh. 63.

                                    4                                   jfa150of06.odt

      6        On   appreciation   of   this   oral   and   documentary

evidence produced on record by the appellant, the

Reference Court enhanced the market price of the acquired

land @ Rs. 40,000/- per hector. However, as regards, the

compensation awarded towards fruit bearing trees, the

Reference Court was pleased to hold that, there was no

evidence produced on record by the appellant to prove that

the compensation awarded by the LAO is inadequate.

7 While challenging this judgment and order of the

Reference Court, submission of learned counsel for

appellant is that, Reference Court should have kept in mind

the fact that it was a compulsory acquisition and as a result

of such acquisition, appellant is rendered landless and

therefore, the compensation awarded towards acquisition

of the land needs to be enhanced. Similarly, it is submitted

that, even as regards the mango trees considering that there

was 612 fruit bearing trees in the land, the compensation

awarded in lumpsum towards yield price of these trees is

also inadequate and hence interference is required.

                                    5                                    jfa150of06.odt




      8        I   have   perused   the   impugned   judgment   of   the

Reference Court and find that the Reference Court has

considered all the sale instances which were produced on

record by the Appellant and found that as the sale instances

at Exhs. 53, 58 and 59 were executed after notification

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, they can not be

considered; whereas sale instances at Exh. 54, 55 and 66

were before notification and therefore, the Reference Court

has considered them for determining market price of the

acquired land. Reference Court found that the sale

instances produced at Exhs. 54, 55 & 56 were of the land

situate Dahigaon and then it was noted by the Reference

Court that as regards the sale instances at Exh. 55, it was of

Gut No. 68 of village Dahigaon and for consideration of Rs.

50,000/- on 3.6.1992 whereas sale instance Exh. 56

pertains to 1 hector land of the same village and it was for

consideration of Rs. 35,000/- dated 24.4.1994.

                                    6                                   jfa150of06.odt

      9        Having   regard   to   those   sale   instances   on   which

appellant himself has placed reliance, it can be clearly seen

that the market price of the land at Dahigaon at the

relevant time being 35,000/- to 50,000/- per hector and

after considering the income and sale instances relied upon

by the appellant, the Reference Court has enhanced the

compensation for the acquired land to the tune of Rs.

40,000/- per hector. It thus appears to be just, reasonable

and correct. Hence, no interference is warranted therein.

10 As regards the compensation awarded towards fruit

bearing trees, the Reference Court has considered the

entries in 7/12 extract which showed that there were 600

sweet lemon trees, 100 Sitafal and Ramfal trees. In the

joint measurement report also, it was found that there were

total 612 trees standing in the acquired land. The appellant

has produced on record the APMC receipts at exh. 38 to 50

showing the approximate yield from those trees. He has

also produced the sale receipt of private merchant at exh.

51. According to appellant the the land was fertile, there

7 jfa150of06.odt

was also evidence to show the existence of well in the land

and that the land was irrigated by water from the well. As

per the observations made by Reference Court, this

evidence has remained unchallenged. However, the

Reference Court has refused to enhance the compensation,

only on the ground that appellant has not adduced expert

evidence nor produced any valuation report.

11 However, in my considered opinion absence of expert

evidence should not prove fetal to the claimant as it is the

duty of the Court to determine the just, reasonable and fair

amount of compensation. The evidence in this case shows

that these trees were of the age of 5 to 6 years and

appellant was getting substantial income from those trees.

However, compensation which was awarded by the LAO

and confirmed by the Reference Court to these 612 trees is

of only Rs. 36,975/-. As rightly submitted by learned

counsel for appellant, the compensation therefore as

awarded by the LAO and confirmed by Reference Court,

comes to Rs. 104 per tree. Needless to state that, this

8 jfa150of06.odt

compensation is, on the face of it also, very meager and

therefore, even in the absence of any evidence of the Expert

or Valuer, the Reference Court should have enhanced it so

as to make it reasonable, fair and just. Having regard to

the evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the

compensation for these trees can be enhanced to the tune

of Rs.500 per tree, as there is no specific evidence on record

in respect of income of different trees. To this extent the

interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and

order of the Reference Court.

The appeal is thus allowed partly. The judgment and

order of the Reference Court is modified to the extent of

enhancing compensation for the trees @ Rs. 500 per tree.

The L.A.O. is directed to calculate the compensation

towards 612 trees on the basis of Rs. 500/- per tree and pay

the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant

claimant within three months with all statutory benefits.

The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

JUDGE

belkhede, PA