Murlidhar Swamy Sansthan, Thr. ... vs The Collector, Nagpur ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3160 Bom

1406 FA 87/2006                                1                          Judgment


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 87/2006 


1]     Murlidhar Swamy Sansthan, Mohpa,
       through it's Wahiwatdar,
       Shirish s/o Manohar Halde.

2]     Smt. Shridevi w/o Shirish Halde,

3]     Prabodh s/o Shirish Halde,

4]     Pranav s/o Shirish Halde,

       All R/o. Mouza Lohgad, Tah.
       Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur.                           APP ELLANTS
                                                                       

                                .....VERSUS.....

The Collector, Nagpur District,
Nagpur (Special Land Acquisition
Officer), Z.P. Works, Nagpur.                               RESPONDE NT
                                                                        


                Shri S.G. Hindaria, counsel for the appellants.
                Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for the respondent.


                            CORAM  : DR S.S.PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

                             DATE     : JUNE 14, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT   

This appeal is preferred by the original claimants

against the judgment and award passed by the 2 nd Joint Civil Judge

1406 FA 87/2006 2 Judgment

(Sr.Dn.), Nagpur on 29/09/2005 in Land Acquisition Case No.

323/1993, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation

awarded by the said court.

2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :

Appellants are owners of the lands bearing survey nos.

62/10 admeasuring 2.22 Hectors, 62/11 admeasuring 4.63 Hectors,

62/1 (new 62/6) admeasuring 2.23 Hectors, 62/4 admeasuring

3.43 Hectors, 62/2 and 62/9 admeasuring 4.63 Hectors, situated at

village Lohgad, District - Nagpur. By virtue of the Notification issued

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24/07/1986, the

said lands came to be acquired by the respondents. The Land

Acquisition Officer valued the lands at meager rate ranging between

Rs.9000/- to Rs.10000/- per hector and awarded the compensation

amount as stated below :-

  Field survey          Area acquired Compensation  Costs of land
       no.                              granted
1] 62/4                1.30 Hectors     Rs.2,60,979/-       Rs.15,366/-
2] 62/6                2.23 Hectors     Rs.43,354/-         Rs.2,20,200/-
3] 62/11               2.90 Hectors     Rs.42,249/-         Rs.25,910/-
4] 62/10               1.64 Hectors     Rs.23,173/-         Rs.14,760/-
5] 62/9                1.64 Hectors     Rs.25,175/-         Rs.14,760/-





 1406 FA 87/2006                                 3                          Judgment

The said compensation amount was inclusive of the value of Orange

trees plus solatium and interest.

3] Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation, as

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, appellants approached the

reference court contending inter-alia that in the total amount of

compensation, though the value of Orange trees was included, no

amount of compensation was awarded to other existing trees

standing in the fields. It was submitted that in the possession

receipt, there is mention of several other trees, like, Ajan, Moh, Kir,

Siwan, Tiwas, Kadu Nim, Babul etc. in survey nos.62/10, 62/11,

62/1, 62/4, 62/2 and 62/9. However, the Land Acquisition Officer

has not awarded any compensation for the same. It was further

submitted that amount of compensation awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer towards the lands in question, was not in

commensurate with their potential, location and the price of the

other adjacent lands. Therefore, it needs to be enhanced to the

extent of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per hector, as claimed by the

appellants. Similarly, it was also contended that the Land

Acquisition Officer has not awarded any amount towards Bandh,

which was constructed by the appellants in the said land, and hence

1406 FA 87/2006 4 Judgment

request was made before the reference court to enhance the

compensation amount to the tune of Rs.15,02,500/-. The reliance

also placed on the Government Resolution dated 31/10/1994,

according to which the price of the acquired lands was to be paid at

the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hector.

4] In support of their case, applicant examined the witness

Shirish Halde to prove the claim.

5] As against it, respondents examined Shri Yashwant

Gedam, the Land Acquisition Officer to prove the valuation of the

lands and also valuation of other trees.

6] On appreciation of their evidence, the learned reference

court was pleased to enhance the compensation to the tune of

Rs.3,58,754/- inclusive of amount of compensation of Rs.93,036/-,

which was already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7] This judgment of the reference court is challenged in

this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants, whereas

supported by learned AGP.

 1406 FA 87/2006                                       5                          Judgment


8]              On   the   rival   submissions   advanced   before   me   by   the 

learned counsels for both the parties, the only question raised for

my determination is "Whether any case is made out by the

appellants to interfere in the judgment and award passed by the

reference court?".

9] The case of the appellants is that the compensation

awarded to them towards the price of the lands which is inclusive of

the value of Orange trees, is not at all fair or adequate. In this

respect however it is pertinent to note that the Land Acquisition

Officer has valued the lands at the rate ranging from Rs.9000/- to

Rs.10000/- per hector, whereas appellants have claimed before the

Land Acquisition Officer an amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-

per hector. On appreciation of the evidence led by appellants and

the evidence led by Shri Yashwant Gedam, the Land Acquisition

Officer, the learned reference court has held the appellant entitled at

the rate of Rs.25,000/- per hector for the acquired lands, totally

admeasuring 11.58 Hectors. Thus, if the reference court has already

increased the amount of compensation towards the acquired land

from Rs.9,000/-, Rs.10,000/- per hector to Rs.25,000/- per hector,

which was the amount demanded by the appellants before the Land

1406 FA 87/2006 6 Judgment

Acquisition Officer, then in my considered opinion, there remains no

cause for grievance on the part of the appellants.

10] It may be true that, in evidence before the reference

court, the reliance was placed on the Government Resolution dated

31/10/1994 (Article-A) to claim the compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,25,000/- per hector, however perusal of the judgment of the

reference court goes to show that reference court has considered the

said Government Resolution and found that it can be applicable only

when minimum 75% of agricultural land in one village is proposed

for acquisition for the projects laid down in the said Government

Resolution. In the instant case, no such evidence is produced on

record to show that the lands of the appellants was being acquired

for one of those projects or minimum 75% of agricultural land in

that village was proposed for acquisition for such projects. In such

situation, it has to be held that reference court has rightly refused to

apply the said Government Resolution for computation of the

compensation as regards the acquired lands of the appellants.

Learned reference court has also considered the sale instances cited

by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award, and on the basis of the

same, it was held that the compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/-

1406 FA 87/2006 7 Judgment

per hector would be the just and reasonable amount of

compensation.

11] On appreciation of the evidence of the appellants and

Land Acquisition Officer by this Court also, in the absence of any

other evidence brought on record, it has to be held that the

compensation enhanced by the reference court from Rs.9,000/- and

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per hector is just and reasonable sum.

The E-statement goes to show that the said amount of compensation

is inclusive of the standing Orange trees. This fact is admitted by the

appellants also in the petition filed before the reference court.

Hence, no question arises of awarding any separate amount of

compensation towards Orange trees.

12] As regards the claim of appellants for compensation

towards the value of other trees standing in the acquired fields, the

learned reference court has considered the same in para no.23 of

the judgment, and accordingly awarded the amount of

Rs.1,62,290/- towards the value of Timber trees and Bandh. The

question before this court does not arise that, whether the reference

court could have awarded any amount of compensation towards the

1406 FA 87/2006 8 Judgment

construction of Bandh as no appeal is preferred by the respondent to

challenge the impugned judgment and award. The fact remains that

learned reference court has awarded substantial amount towards

existing Timber and other trees standing in the said lands in

addition to the amount of compensation for Bandh.

13] Thus, it has to be held that, after considering the entire

evidence on record, the reference court has properly arrived at the

rate of compensation of Rs.25,000/- per hector towards the acquired

land and Rs.1,62,290/- towards the value of Timber and forest trees

along with value of Bandh. The compensation awarded by the

reference court, which is to the tune of Rs.3,58,754/- is definitely

four times more than the compensation awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer, and as it is based on the appreciation of evidence

brought on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere

in the said order.

14] The appeal, therefore, holds no merits, and hence

stands dismissed.

JUDGE Yenurkar