Radhakishan Punjaram Ardad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 4696 Bom

                                           1                        FA NO.3661.16

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    FIRST APPEAL NO.3661 OF 2016

  1.       Radhakishan S/o. Punjaram Ardad,
           Age: 42 years, Occ: Agril.,
           R/o. Bolegaon, Tq. Ghansawangi,
           Dist. Jalna                   =                APPELLANT
                                                        (Orig. Claimant)
                   VERSUS

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through the Collector,
           Jalna, Dist. Jalna

  2.       The Special land Acquisition Officer,
           Collector Office, Jalna (E & D)
           Jalna

  3.       The Executive Engineer,
           Minor Irrigation Department,
           Zilla Parishad, Jalna                    =      RESPONDENTS
                                 -----
           Mr. Babashaeb A. Dhengle, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.M. Ganachari, AGP for Respondent/State
           Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                        -----
                                 CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.

                                 DATE :         18th July, 2017

  ORAL JUDGMENT:


  1)                   Shri    Tope,   learned    Counsel       appearing          for

respondent no.3 Zilla Parishad submits that Zilla Parishad,

Jalna, is noway concerned with the acquisition which is the

2 FA NO.3661.16

subject matter of the present appeal. Learned Counsel for

the appellant also agrees with the fact so stated by Shri Tope

that there is no concern of the Zilla Parishad, Jalna. Shri Tope,

learned Counsel, has tendered across the Bar a letter received

to him from the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla

Parishad, Jalna, dated 10th April, 2017. The same is taken

on record. In the said letter it is clarified that the Zilla

Parishad, Jalna, is noway concerned with the subject

acquisition. In view of the submission so made, the name of

respondent no.3 stands deleted from the array of the

respondents.

2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned

Counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.P. appearing for

respondent nos. 1 and 2. The main grievance of the

appellant in the present appeal is that while deciding the

Reference application, the Reference Court has not awarded

any compensation towards 200 Mosambi trees alleged to be

standing in the acquired land. Learned Counsel invited my

attention to paragraph No.13 of the judgment wherein a

reference has come that, in joint measurement of the subject

land, 200 Mosambi trees were shown to be standing in the

acquired land. Learned Counsel submitted that it was

3 FA NO.3661.16

throughout the case of the present appellant that there are

around 200 Mosambi trees in his land and he is entitled for

compensation towards the said trees.

3. I have perused the impugned judgment and the

other material placed on record. In the Reference Application

under Section 18 of the Act preferred by the appellant, claiming

enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded by

the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant had specifically

mentioned that 200 Mosambi trees were standing in his land

along with other fruit bearing trees and he had claimed the

enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer towards the said trees. In paragraph No.13

of the impugned judgment also, it is stated that in the joint

measurement report of the subject land, 200 Mosambi trees

were shown to be standing in the field of the appellant along

with other fruit bearing trees. However, in the further part of

the judgment though the Reference Court has discussed the

evidence in regard to other trees standing in the subject land,

has not made any discussion about the Mosambi trees and

obviously, therefore, no compensation has been enhanced in so

far as Mosambi trees are concerned though in respect of other

trees, the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of

4 FA NO.3661.16

compensation. When in the Reference Application there was

mention of 200 Mosambi trees standing in the subject land and

when even in joint measurement statement there was reference

of 200 Mosambi trees, there must have been some discussion

in the judgment of the Reference Court, either accepting the

request of the claimant to enhance the amount of compensation

for said Mosambi trees or rejecting the prayer so made by

assigning reasons therefor. However, there is absolutely no

discussion in the impugned judgment about the said Mosambi

trees.

4. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate

to remit back the matter to the Reference Court to consider and

decide the alleged claim of the appellant / claimant in respect of

enhancement in the amount of compensation towards 200

Mosambi trees alleged to be standing in his subject land on the

basis of the evidence available on record as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within a period of six months.

The First Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE AGP/3661-16fa