The General Manager Central Rly. ... vs Mahadeo Natthuji Pakade & 2 Otrs
2017 Latest Caselaw 2685 Bom

fa.1427.08.jud.doc                                1

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

                               FIRST APPEAL NO.1427 OF 2008

Appellant                   :      The General Manager,
                                   Central Railway, through Dy. Chief Engineer,
                                   Central Railway, Construction, Ajani, 
                                   Nagpur.

                                   -- Versus --

Respondents                 :   1] Mahadeo Natthuji Pakade, 
                                   Aged - Adult, R/o Village Pala, 
                                   Tahsil Morshi, District Amravati.


                                 2] The State of Maharashtra,
                                    Through Collector, Amravati,
                                    Tahsil and District Amravati.

                                 3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                                    Upper Wardha Project, Beneficiary Zone No.2,
                                    Amravati Collectorate, Amravati.
       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
       Shri Zahid Shekhani, Adv. h/f Shri R.G. Agrawal, Adv. for Appellant.
              Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                            CORAM          :   B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

                            DATE           :   31
                                                     MAY, 2017.
                                                  st




ORAL JUDGMENT :- 

Heard Shri Zahid Shekhani, Advocate, holding for Shri R.G.

Agrawal, learned Counsel for appellant and Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.2 and 3. Nobody appears

for respondent no.1.

02] Learned Counsel appearing for appellant submits that only

question to be looked into in this appeal is whether Reference Court was

justified in enhancing compensation per orange tree from Rs.1,200/- to

Rs.2,500/-.

03] Fact of acquisition of Gat No.73/1-A admeasuring 0.42 hectare is

not in dispute. The impugned judgment dated 05/03/2008 delivered in Land

Acquisition Case No.126/2002 by Ad hoc District Judge-5, Amravati shows

that compensation has been hiked only for orange trees. This hike towards

orange trees is questioned by acquiring agency in present appeal under

Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondent no.1-land owner

has not filed any appeal challenging the judgment of Reference Court. It is,

therefore, not necessary to look into other facets.

04] After hearing respective Counsel, the only question to be looked

into by me in present appeal is whether there was any material on record to

enable Reference Court to hike compensation towards orange trees. I answer

to the question in the negative for the reasons recorded below.

05] Perusal of reference petition under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act reveals that respondent no.1-land owner claims compensation

towards 138 orange trees at the rate of Rs.1,625/- per tree. Issues framed by

Reference Court are as under :

1) Whether the petitioner proves that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded inadequate compensation to him?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as prayed?

3) What order?

06] Discussions undertaken shows that because of existence of 94

orange trees on the land, an inference that it was irrigated land has been

drawn and compensation for each orange tree has been almost doubled.

Perusal of evidence of land owner reveals that in paragraph 3 of his

examination-in-chief, he stated that there were 138 fully grown fruit bearing

orange trees, as per his claim statement, he sought total compensation of

Rs.2,25,000/- for these trees at the rate of Rs.1,625/- per tree. In cross-

examination, he accepted that there were only 94 orange trees in acquired

land and the trees were more than 20 years old.

07] In this situation, when compensation per tree claimed by land

owner was at the rate of Rs.1,625/-, reference Court could not have hiked it

further to Rs.2,500/- per tree. In entire examination-in-chief, there is

absolutely nothing to show yield per tree or total income so as to hold that

compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer was unjust. Merely

because 20 years old orange trees existed and land was irrigated, inference

that value of each tree was Rs.2,500/- is unwarranted. Reasons recorded by

Reference Court in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment do not show any

logic to reach a finding that compensation of Rs.2,500/- per tree needed to be

awarded for 94 trees.

08] In view of this, the first appeal is allowed. Judgment and order

dated 05/03/2008 in Land Acquisition Case No.126/2002 is quashed and set

aside. Amount deposited with the Registry of this Court along with accrued

interest is allowed to be withdrawn by appellant.

Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

JUDGE *sdw