State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors vs Tukaram Pandurang Gainar
2017 Latest Caselaw 2968 Bom

                                                1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Civil Revision Application no. 32 of 2017

Applicants              :          1.  Prafulla s/o Narhar Wagh, aged about 

                                   54 years, Occ: service, 

                                   2. Dr Mrs Snehal w/o Prafulla Wagh, aged

                                   about 52 years, Occ: service



                                   versus

Respondent              :          Tukaram Pandurang Gainar, aged about 

                                   67 years, resident of Pathrad, Tahsil Ner, 

                                   District Yavatmal



Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants

Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent 

                                   ----------

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 8th June 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Heard. By this appeal, legality and correctness of the judgment

dated 3rd May 2003 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in

Land Acquisition Case No. 168 of 2001 has been questioned.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Civil Judge, Senior

Division has granted enhanced compensation for acquisition of land

admeasuring 1.62 HR from land bearing survey no. 252 situated at Pathrad.

The compensation was enhanced by determining the value of the land @ Rs.

1,50,000/- per hectare and fixing the rate of 431 orange trees and 10 orange

trees respectively at Rs. 2500/- per tree and Rs. 1228/- per tree. In the

enhanced compensation amount, value of the well as well as of bund was

determined at Rs. 1,08,500/- and Rs. 72,000/- respectively. The Reference

Court further directed the appellants to pay special component at 12% per

annum on the amount of enhanced compensation for the relevant period and

solatium at 30% on the amount of enhanced compensation.

3. So far as value of the land determined @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per

hectare is concerned, I find that it is covered by the judgment of this Court

delivered in First Appeal No. 480 of 23003 with X-Appeal (St) No. 21490 of

2003 on 22.6.2016. There is no dispute about the same as well. Therefore, on

this count, this appeal is without any substance.

4. As regards the compensation granted for orange trees, other trees,

well and bund, I find that the evidence brought on record by appellant can be

taken as reasonably establishing the fact that the rates at which the

compensation has been claimed by the appellant in this behalf are reasonable.

No challenge worth mentioning has been posed to the witnesses examined by

the respondent. Joint measurement report (exhibit 62) clearly shows that there

were 441 trees, but compensation was paid only for 298 trees. The possession

receipt vide exhibit 72 also discloses that there were 75 Bor trees, 11 Anjan

trees and six Babhul trees and the opinion expressed by the trial Court that

these trees were likely to fetch price of Rs. 400/- per trees cannot be said to be

not based upon the facts and circumstances of the claim. The same applies to

the value of well and bund determined by the trial Court. There is evidence of

one Devanand Deolakar who prepared valuation report (exhibit 78) and his

evidence has almost gone unchallenged. No suggestion has been given to him

that the bund did not exist. The valuation report prepared by him in respect of

the well clearly shows that the assessment has been properly done by him and

there is nothing in his cross-examination to entertain any doubt about the

manner in which the valuation has been ascertained.

5. In the result, I find that there is no merit in the appeal. It deserves

to be dismissed with costs. The appeal stands dismissed with costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi