Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors vs Ku.Pranali D/O.Bhaiyya Jawade & ... on 16 March, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 202 of 2010
Appellants : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
District Collector, Yavatmal
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Road Project, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal
3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works
Division No. 1, Yavatmal
versus
Respondents : 1. Ku Pranali d/o Bhaiyya Jawade, aged
about 19 years, Education
2. Ku Vaishali d/o Bhaiyya Jawade, aged
about 21 years, Education
Both residents of Chahand, Tahsil Ralegaon,
District Yavatmal
Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Government Pleader for appellants
Shri S. S. Bhalerao, Advocate for respondents
Coram : A. S. Chandurkar, J
Dated : 16th March 2017
Oral Judgment
1. By this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 the State has challenged the judgment of the Reference Court in
LAC No. 1 of 1995 by which the amount of compensation awarded to
respondents has been partly enhanced.
2. Land admeasuring 0.30 HR from survey number 49 of village
Chahand was acquired for construction of Bridge. Notification under
Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 23.5.1991. The Land Acquisition
Officer passed his Award on 9.5.1994. He granted amount of Rs.
14,813/- per hector. Bring aggrieved, the respondents filed Reference
Application under Section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned judgment,
the Reference Court granted amount of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare for the
acquired land; Rs. 2000/- each for 50 orange trees and Rs. 25,000/-
towards severance charges.
3. Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the appellants submitted that there was no evidence placed on record by
the respondents to seek enhancement before the Reference Court. No
sale instance of the said period was brought on record and there was also
no evidence to indicate the income earned by the respondents from the
agricultural operations in the said land. Without any such evidence, the
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000/-
per hector. Similarly, the 7/12 extracts indicated that survey number 49
was admeasuring 4.77 HR and as only 0.30 HR of land was acquired, it
could not be said that orange trees were grown in the acquired land
alone. He then submitted that the amount of severance charges had been
granted without any evidence. It was, therefore, submitted that the
judgment of the Reference Court deserves to be set aside and the Award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer deserves to be restored.
4. Shri S. S. Bhalerao, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the enhancement
granted for the land was on the basis of various crops grown in the land
which indicated that it was an irrigated land. From the photographs
placed on record as well as the 7/12 extracts, it was clear that the orange
trees were grown in the acquired land. He then submitted that due to
acquisition of the aforesaid land, the same was divided into two pieces
due to which 0.75 HR land could not be used for any purpose. He,
therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for
interference.
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. In support of their claim for compensation, the claimants
examined their father Bhayya Shamrao Jawade at Exhibit 14. Respondent
no. 1 Pranali also examined herself at Exhibit 26 and another witness at
Exhibit 27. Insofar as compensation for land is concerned, it is not in
dispute that there was no sale instance of the relevant period available on
record. On the basis of income capitalization method, the Reference Court
found that the amount of Rs. 2000/- per acre could be the net income.
There is, however, no evidence brought on record to indicate the income
from the said land. The basis on which net income of Rs. 2000/- per acre
has been arrived at, is not at all indicated. Hence, on that basis,
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare cannot be awarded.
However, considering the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 16 to 22,
it can be seen that the respondents were harvesting crops such as cotton,
tur, jawar etc. Considering nature of these crops an amount of Rs.
30,000/- per hectare can be considered as compensation for the acquired
land.
7. Insofar as compensation for the orange trees is concerned,
the 7/12 extracts shows that in the entire survey number 49 orange trees
were planted whereas the land acquired admeasures only 0.30 HR. The
Reference Court on the basis of photographs at Articles B to G has taken
the orange trees to be 50 in number. Considering the total area of the
land and the demarcated portion in the photographs on record, the
number of orange trees can be taken to be 15. The Reference Court has
granted sum of Rs. 2000/- per orange tree. This figure has been arrived
at without specifying the basis for the same. The 7/12 extract for the year
1988-89 at Exhibit 17 for the first time indicates presence of orange trees.
The notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 23.5.1991.
Hence, the trees in the acquired land cannot be more than three years old.
On that basis, the amount of Rs. 1000/- per tree appears to be reasonable.
8. Insofar as compensation for severance of the land is
concerned, it is the case of respondents that on account of acquisition of
0.30 HR of the land, the same has been severed from 0.75 HR of land.
Considering the deposition of P. W. 1 Bhaiyya along with the map at
Exhibit 24, I find that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards severance of
the land would be sufficient compensation. The point as framed stands
answered accordingly.
9. In the result, the following order is passed:
(a) The judgment of the Reference Court in LAC No. 1 of 1995 is
partly modified.
(b) It is held that the respondents are entitled for compensation
@ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare for the acquired land; Rs. 1000/- per orange
tree for 15 orange trees and Rs. 10,000/- towards severance charges. The
amount of compensation shall carry interest, as granted in the Award.
(c) First Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
A. S. CHANDURKAR, J
joshi
