Bombay High Court
The General Manager, Central ... vs Smt. Mandabai Manoharrrao Mohod ... on 12 June, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
fa438.06.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.438 OF 2006
The General Manager,
Central Railway,
through Deputy Chief Engineer,
Central Railway, Construction,
Ajani, Nagpur. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Smt. Mandabai Manoharrao Mohod,
Aged about 49 years, Agriculturist,
R/o Pala, Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
2] The State of Maharashtra through
the Collector, Amravati.
3] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer-2, Upper Wardha Project,
Amravati. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Zahil Shukhani, Advocate holding for Shri R.G.
Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate holding for Shri A.S.
Kilor, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
th
DATE: 12
JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] This appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order dated 07.04.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Amravati in L.A.C. No.2/2000, thereby directing the
payment of additional compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- to the
respondent No.1 herein, towards the price of orange trees,
besides the compensation already received by him.
2] Brief facts of the appeal are to the effect that are
as follows:
In pursuance of the notification issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land belonging to
the respondent No.1 herein, bearing Survey No.73/1
admeasuring 2.63 hectare out of the total area of 5.4 hectare
situate at Mouza Pala came to be acquired for construction of
Amravati-Narkhed railway line. In pursuance of the notice
issued under Section 9 of the Act, respondent No.1 appeared
before the L.A.O. and claimed compensation at the rate of
Rs.4100/- per orange tree and Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare
towards the land. The Land Acquisition Officer granted the
amount of Rs.77,500/- per hectare towards the price of the
land Rs.1100/- to Rs.1200/- per orange tree.
3] Being not satisfied with the amount of
compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the
respondent No.1 approached the Reference Court and led her
evidence and also the evidence of Horticulturist and one
Officer from A.P.M.C. On appreciation of their evidence, the
learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation of
orange tree by Rs.500/- per tree and thus awarded additional
compensation in respect of 896 orange tree to the tune of
Rs.4,48,000/- along with the interest and other statutory
benefits.
4] While challenging the judgment and order of the
Reference Court, the submission of the learned counsel for
appellant is that the Reference Court has, without there being
any evidence on record, enhanced the amount of
compensation on the basis of personal opinion given by the
respondent No.1. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition
Officer has properly considered all the factors and awarded
the just and reasonable amount of compensation, having
regard to the age of the orange trees and the yield therefrom.
Hence, it was not proper on the part of the Reference Court
to enhance the said amount by Rs.500/- per tree.
5] Perusal of the impugned judgment and order of
the Reference Court however reveals that the Reference Court
has considered the evidence adduced by the witness
No.3-Subhash Tayade, who was an Horticulturist and also the
evidence of witness No.4-Onkar Raut who was working as
Secretary in A.P.M.C. Witness No.3 Horticulturist-Tayade has
visited the land belonging to the respondent No.1 and carried
out the joint measurement and inspection of the orange trees
standing therein. He had given the detailed description of the
trees and also stated on the basis of his expertise, as to what
can be approximate income from those orange trees.
According to him, the valuation of the orange tree standing in
the land of the respondent No.1 can be of Rs.4096/- per
orange tree, thus the totally Rs.61,44,000/- for 5100 orange
tree standing on the relevant time.
6] Witness No.4-Onkar Raut, the Secretary of
A.P.M.C. has produced on record relevant evidence of the
orange price during the period 1996-1997 and 1997-1998.
The Reference Court has considered in this respect the
evidence of both these witnesses and also the evidence of
respondent No.1. Further, the Reference Court has also
considered the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer and
ultimately came to conclusion that respondent No.1 has
produced evidence on record to show that at the relevant
time, market rate of orange tree can be Rs.3400/- per tree.
The learned Reference Court found that the said rate would
be exorbitant and hence, on the basis of material and the
documents before him, held the respondent No.1 entitled to
additional compensation for 896 orange tree at the rate of
500 per tree.
7] If the entire evidence on record is considered, it
cannot be said that the additional compensation of amount as
awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.500/- per
tree, can be in any way called as exorbitant or against the
evidence produced on record. In such a situation, no
interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and
award, as passed by the Reference Court. The appeal
therefore, stands dismissed.
8] At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent
No.1, requests the Court to permit the respondent No.1 to
withdraw the amount of compensation deposited in the
Court. In view of dismissal of this appeal and no objection
given by the learned counsel for appellant, the respondent
No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of
compensation, which is deposited in the Court.
JUDGE
NSN
