Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Girish Dnyanoba Gawande & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 765 Bom

                                               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No.  469 of 2005

Appellant               :          Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,

                                   through its Executive Engineer,  Medium Project

                                   Division, Pusad, District Yavatmal

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1.  Girish Dnyanoba Gawande, aged about 35

years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Pathrad,

Tahsil Ner, District Yavatmal

2. The State of Maharashtra, through the

Collector, Yavatmal

3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower

Division No. 1, Yavatmal

Shri A. B. Patil, Advocate for appellant

Shri S. D. Dharaskar, Advocate for respondent no. 1

Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3

Coram : A. S. Chandurkar, J

Dated : 16th March 2017

Oral Judgment

1. By this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act, the acquiring body has challenged the judgment of the Reference

Court in LAC No. 1448 of 2004 by which the amount of compensation

awarded to respondent no. 1 has been partly enhanced.

2. Land admeasuring 1.46 HR situated at village Pathrad, Tahsil

Ner, District Yavatmal came to be acquired for submergence of Ner

Project. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 25.4.1995.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed his Award on 31.1.1998. Being

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the respondent filed

reference under Section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned judgment,

the amount of compensation has been enhanced. Being aggrieved by the

said enhancement, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Shri A. B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that insofar as compensation for the land is concerned, the same has been

adjudicated @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare in other acquisition proceedings

from the same village. This adjudication is in First Appeal No. 470 of

2005 and other appeals. Insofar as the compensation for the orange trees

is concerned, it is submitted that the 7/12 extracts placed on record

pertained to Gat number 91 and Gat number 215. The figure of orange

trees differed from the figures mentioned in the report of the valuer. It is

then submitted that insofar as 17 sweet-lime trees and 3 guava trees are

concerned, the same are not reflected in the 7/12 extracts. On that count,

compensation does not deserve to be granted for those trees. It is,

therefore, submitted that the judgment of the Reference Court deserves to

be modified to that extent.

4. Shri S. D. Dharaskar, learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned Award. According to him, the 7/12 extracts

referred to Gat number 215 as well as survey number 91 out of which a

piece of land is acquired. From the deposition of the Valuer, it can be

seen that there were 275 orange trees and this fact was clear from the

documents placed on record. He referred to the report at Exhibit 65 to

justify the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. As regards

sweet-lime trees and guava trees, it is submitted that they were also

reflected in the valuation report. It was, therefore, submitted that there

was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Ms Mrinal Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent nos. 2 and 3.

5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have

perused record of the case. The following point arises for consideration:

Whether the judgment of the Reference Court deserves

to be interfered with ?

6. Insofar as compensation for the acquired land is concerned, it

is an admitted position that this Court has determined the amount of

compensation for land situated in the same village at Rs. 1,50,000/- per

hector. The said amount granted by the Reference Court, therefore, does

not deserve to be interfered with.

7. Insofar as orange trees are concerned, the reference to the

same can be found in the 7/12 extract from Exhibits 38 to 45. Though

Exhibits 38 and 39 mention Gat number as 91, the same has

subsequently been shown as Gat number 215. The area shown in these

extracts is identical and the same also reflects the name of respondent no.

1. As per the report of the valuer at Exhibit 65, 200 orange trees were

aged eight years and age of 22 orange trees is shown as two years. It is

the case of the claimant that there were 275 orange trees. The Reference

Court has taken into consideration the report of the valuer for considering

the number of orange trees. On perusal of 7/12 extracts as well as

valuer's report, the amount granted for the orange trees does not deserve

to be interfered with.

8. Insofar as sweet-lime trees and guava trees are concerned,

the same are not mentioned in the 7/12 extracts from Exhibits 38 to 45.

Merely on the basis of the valuation report, it cannot be accepted that

such trees were in existence. As 7/12 extracts have been relied upon for

determining the number of orange trees, on the same basis, it has to be

held that the compensation does not deserve to be granted for sweet-lime

and guava trees as their presence is not mentioned in the revenue records.

The point as framed is answered accordingly.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of the Reference Court

in LAC No. 1448 of 2004 dated 16 th March 2005 is partly modified. It is

held that respondent no. 1 is not entitled for compensation for the swee-

lime and guava trees. Respondent no. 1 shall be entitled for interest @

9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation for a period of

one year from 31.1.1998 and after period of one year, @ 15% per annum

till realization. Rest of the Award passed by the Reference Court stands

confirmed. No order as to costs.

A. S. CHANDURKAR, J

joshi