Ramchandra Mahadeo Bansod And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11636 Bom

 J.34FA.291.21.odt                                                                  1

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

                           FIRST APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2021


 1.       Executive Engineer,
          Medium Project Division,
          Yavatmal, District Yavatmal

 2.       Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
          through its Executive Engineer,
          Medium Project Division,
          Yavatmal, District Yavatmal
                                                                   ...APPELLANTS

                                     VERSUS

 1.       Ramchandra Mahadeo Bansod,
          Aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
          R/o. Sindkhed, Tah. Ner,
          District Yavatmal.

 2.       State of Maharashtra,
          through Collector, Yavatmal

 3.       The Sub-Divisional Officer and
          Special Land Acquisition Officer,
          Darwha, Tah. Darwha,
          Dist. Yavatmal
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS
                                     WITH
                         CROSS OBJECTION NO. 16 OF 2021

          Ramchandra Mahadeo Bansod,
          Aged 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
          R/o. Sindkhed, Tah. Ner,
          District Yavatmal.                             ...CROSS-OBJECTOR

                                     VERSUS

 1.       State of Maharashtra,
          Through Collector, Yavatmal
          Tq and Dist. Yavatmal


::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 23:33:29 :::
  J.34FA.291.21.odt                                                                     2


 2.       The Sub-Divisional Officer and
          Special Land Acquisition Officer,
          Darwha, Tah. Darwha,
          Dist. Yavatmal.

 3.       Executive Engineer,
          Medium Project Division,
          Yavatmal, District Yavatmal

 4.       Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
          through the Executive Engineer,
          Medium Project Division,
          Yavatmal, District Yavatmal
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
 ______________________________________________________________

 Shri Anoopsingh Parihar with Shri Abhijit Parihar, Advocate for
 appellant.
 Shri A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for respondent No. 1/cross-objector.
 Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
 ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM :   PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

DATED : AUGUST 24, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Vide order dated 22/02/2021, relying on the submissions

of learned counsel for respondent No.1 stating that the matter is

covered by the judgment dated 29/08/2019 in First Appeal

No.779/2017, the appeal is listed to dispose of finally at the stage of

admission.

3. Admit.

4. Shri A.B. Nakshane, learned counsel for respondent No.1

and Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 & 3, waive notice.

5. The appellant - V.I.D.C. takes exception to the judgment

and award dated 17/04/2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Darwha in L.A.C. No. 239/2005, whereby the learned Judge

enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for

the land ad-measuring 1.58 HR situated at Gat No. 52 so also land ad-

measuring 0.60 R is situated at Gat No. 4 in village Sindkhed, Tah. Ner,

District Yavatmal.

6. The respondent/claimant also filed cross-objection against

the aforesaid judgment and award for claiming enhancement in the

compensation towards valuation of orange trees which were situated

on the land which was the subject of acquisition.

7. The aforesaid lands of the claimants came to be acquired

for Kumbharpind project. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 03/08/2000 and the award came

to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 29/07/2003, granting

compensation at the rate of Rs.37,000/- per hectare for the acquired

land to the claimant and an amount of Rs.6,10,232/- was granted

towards the orange trees which were existing on the said land.

8. Shri Nakshane, learned counsel for the claimants restricts

his claim in the cross-objection to the extent of enhancement in

compensation for orange trees. Learned counsel relied on the

judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.779/2017 with

Cross-objection No.79/2018 and submitted that in the similarly

situated land wherein 450 orange trees were standing on the land, this

Court valued the compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/- per tree,

though the orange trees were of age 9 years.

9. Learned counsel also relied on the valuation report of

witness - Shri Vishnu Gangadhar Paradkar so also 7/12 extracts

(Exh.24 to 27) and submitted that 7/12 extracts of the subject land

would indicate existence of 475 orange trees since begin 1991-1992.

The notification issued under Section 4 is of the year 2000, therefore,

according to the learned counsel, the age of these trees at the relevant

time was 9 years, therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to

allow the cross-objection by enhancing the rates of orange trees at the

rate of Rs.5000/- per tree.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant does not press for claim

of enhancement of other 199 orange trees which were situated in Gat

No.4 as they were of age 5 years old. Furthermore, the valuer - Shri

Vishnu Gangadhar Paradkar below Exh.40 in his evidence by way of

affidavit deposed that he has inspected the field of the claimant and

found 199 orange trees in field Gat No.4 and they were of age 5 years

while 475 orange trees in field Gat No. 52 and they were of age 9

years.

11. Learned counsel prays this Court to award the

compensation, in view of the judgment referred above.

12. Shri Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring

body strongly opposed the prayer of the claimants for the enhancement

of the compensation and on the contrary, the learned Counsel submits

that the learned Reference Court has already awarded an exorbitant

amount of compensation and the same needs to be reduced.

13. I have considered the rival submissions. There is no

dispute that the subject land with Orange trees in the present appeal

and the subject land with Orange trees in Cross-Objection No.79/2018

in First Appeal No.779/2017 were acquired out of the same notification

and are situated in the same village and the age of the Orange trees are

similar, therefore, I do not find any good reason to take a different view

of the matter than the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the above cited appeals.

14. For the reasons as recorded in Cross-Objection No.79/2018

in First Appeal No.779/2017, I am inclined to partly allow the cross-

objection and thereby dismiss the appeal. Hence, I pass the following

order :

(i) The award of the Reference Court is modified to the extent

of compensation for 475 orange trees of 9 years old shall be payable at

the rate of Rs.5000/- per tree (Rs.23,75,000/-). Accordingly, the

Reference Court Award stands modified to that extent and the

enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable along with all

statutory benefits.

(ii) Consequently, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the

balance amount. The appellant - V.I.D.C. to deposit the enhanced

compensation amount for the orange trees within a period of 12 weeks.

Thereafter, the claimant would be entitled to withdraw the same with

accrued interest thereon.

JUDGE *DB