Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Sharad Ambadasji Gole And 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 805 Bom

16-B-J-FA-499-05                                                                                1/5


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

                            FIRST APPEAL NO.499 OF 2005


Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, 
Through Executive Engineer, 
Medium Project Division, Pusad 
District Yavatmal.                                                 ... Appellant. 

-vs- 

1.  Sharad Ambadasji Gole
     Aged about 45 years, 
     Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Pathrad, 
     Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal. 

2.  The State of Maharashtra,
     Through Collector, Yavatmal. 

3.  The Sub Divisional Officer and
     Land Acquisition Officer, 
     Minor Irrigation Works No.1, Yavtmal, 
     District Yavatmal.                                            ... Respondents. 


Shri A. B. Patil, Advocate for appellant. 
Shri P. Dharaskar, Advocate for respondent No.1. 
Ms M. S. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 


                                                  CORAM  : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : March 17, 2017

Oral Judgment :

This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the

Reference Court dated 05/04/2005 in LAC No.1432/2004.

16-B-J-FA-499-05 2/5

Land admesuring 2H 25R from Gut No.212 came to be acquired

for Ner Project. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published

on 26/04/1995 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on

31/01/1998. The claimant not being satisfied with the amount of

compensation filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act. By the

impugned judgment, the Reference Court partly enhanced the amount of

compensation by awarding Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for the acquired land.

Rs.3000/- per orange tree, Rs.2500/- per tree for 119 medium aged tree and

Rs.300 per tree for 73 small trees. Rs.15,000/- was granted for the bandh.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid quantum of compensation, the present

appeal has been filed.

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

in so far as compensation for the land is concerned this Court has

adjudicated an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare to be fair compensation

for lands from the same village. He further submits that considering the

evidence with regard to the orange trees, the Reference Court was not

justified in granting compensation for the same on the basis of their age.

According to him the 7/12 extracts for the first time in the year 1991-92

indicated presence of orange trees. He therefore submitted that

compensation awarded on this head deserves to be reduced.

16-B-J-FA-499-05 3/5

3. Shri P. Dharaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported

the impugned judgment. According to him the report of the Valuer who was

examined by the claimant justified the grant of compensation for the orange

trees. He submitted that considering the area of Gut No.212, the number of

orange trees was rightly taken as 400. The justification for different rates of

compensation was also given by the Valuer. He therefore submitted that

there was no reason to reduce the amount of compensation.

Ms M. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have

perused the records of the case and I have given due consideration to the

respective submissions. Following point arises for consideration :

" Whether the judgment of the Reference court deserves to be

interfered with ?"

5. In so far as value of the land is concerned, it is an admitted

position that compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare has been

adjudicated in respect of the lands acquired from the same village and under

same notification. Hence said amount awarded by the Reference Court

does not deserve to be interfered with. In so far as the orange trees are

concerned, the 7/12/extract at Exhibit-44 for the year 1991-92 reflects

16-B-J-FA-499-05 4/5

presence of 400 orange trees. It is to be noted that no 7/12 extracts for the

earlier years have been placed on record. As per the report of the Valuer at

Exhibit-78 it has been stated that the orange trees were divided into three

categories as per their age. The age shown is for five years, three years and

small trees. However in absence of any other evidence to corroborate the

age of the years as noted by the Valuer, the 7/12 extract at Exhibit-44 will

have to be accepted and total number of orange trees will have to be taken at

400. Since that 7/12 extract is of the year 1991-92 the age of the orange

trees can be taken at five years when the notification under Section 4 of the

said Act was issued. On the basis of report of the Valuer and with some

guesswork rate of Rs.2500/- per orange tree aged about five years would be

reasonable compensation for 323 orange trees. In so far as 73 saplings are

concerned, the amount granted does not deserve to be interfered. Similarly

Rs.15,000/- granted for the bandh is also reasonable. The point as framed

stands answered accordingly.

5. For aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed :

The judgment of the Reference Court dated 05/04/2005 in LAC

No.1492/2004 is partly modified. Compensation granted for the land stands

confirmed. Compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- per tree is granted for 323

orange trees. Rest of the amounts awarded by the Reference Court stand

confirmed.

16-B-J-FA-499-05 5/5

First appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

JUDGE

Asmita