Vidarbha Irrigation Devp. ... vs Shriramji Rajaramji Dhabale & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 814 Bom

16-C-J-FA-452-05                                                                                1/4


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

                            FIRST APPEAL NO.452 OF 2005


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

-vs- 

1.  Shriramji Rajaramji Dhabale 
     Aged about 66 years, 
     Occ. Service/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 holding for Shri A. Parchure, 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 24/03/2005 in LAC No.1770/2004.

16-C-J-FA-452-05 2/4

Land admeasuring 2H from Gut No.239 came to be acquired for

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

02/03/1995 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.

An amount of Rs.3500/- per orange tree for 150 trees and Rs.40,000/- for

the bandh was granted. 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 submitted 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 extract 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. The amount

granted for the bandh was also on a higher side.

16-C-J-FA-452-05 3/4

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.239, the number of

orange trees was rightly taken as 150. 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. The 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 Exhibits-54 to 56 pertaining to the year 1984-

85 and onwards indicate presence of orange trees. While in Exhibit-55 the

16-C-J-FA-452-05 4/4

number of orange trees are shown as 200, the same are shown as 125 in

Exhibit-56. Considering the aforesaid nature of evidence as well as the

report of the Valuer in which it is stated that there were 150 orange trees,

said figure of 150 orange trees deserves to be accepted. Considering the age

of the orange trees which appears to be slightly more than ten years, the

amount of Rs.3500/- per orange tree as granted appears to be reasonable.

6. In so far as the bandh in gut No. 239 is concerned, the Reference

Court has granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the same. It is to be noted that

LAC No.1486-04 was decided along with present proceedings. The land

acquired therein was 2H 43 R and Rs.20,000/- was granted for the bandh

therein. The land acquired in the present appeal is only 2H and therefore I

find that the amount of Rs.20000/- deserves to be granted for the bandh in

the present proceedings also. The point as framed is answered accordingly.

Hence for aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the Reference Court

dated 24/03/2005 in LAC No.1770/2004 is partly modified. The

compensation granted for the land and the orange trees is maintained.

Amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted for the bandh.

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

JUDGE

Asmita