V. I. D. C., Through Its Executive ... vs Milind Nanarao Gole And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 11984 Bom

                                                        1                             290.FA.1040-2016.odt




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

                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 2016
                      ( V.I.D.C. Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Pusad
                                            Vs.
                               Milind Nanarao Gole & Ors. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Appellant.
                                  Mr. Swaroop Bhattacharya, Advocate h/f Mr. Y.S. Gorle, Advocate for the
                                  Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
                                  Mr. M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5/State.




                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2022.

Heard.

2. The appeal challenges the judgment and award under reference dated 29.11.2014, as the reference had been partly allowed.

3. The facts of the case are as under.

(i) Notification dated 22.06.1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was published for acquisition of land of Survey No. 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3, admeasuring 3.10 HR, Mouza Bharad, Taluqa Ner, District Yavatmal, for Ner Percolation Tank Project.

(ii) On 09.05.1997, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, has passed an award granting compensation of 2 290.FA.1040-2016.odt

Rs. 97,373/- for acquisition of land as well as Trees standing thereupon, i.e. Rs. 77,500/- for the entire land ; Rs. 19,873/- for 387 Orange Trees and rejected the claims for the Eucalyptus Trees.

(iii) On 29.11.2014, the Reference Court had partly allowed the reference and granted an enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,70,627/- at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per hectare for land and Rs. 1,500/- per tree for 387 Orange Trees. It is aggrieved by this judgment, that the present appeal has been filed.

4. Before the reference Court, the claim of the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 was as under:

"9. The claim of the applicant is as under :-

Rs. 10,85,000/- Value of the irrigated land admeasuring 03=10 (3 Hect.

10 ARE) at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- Per Hectare i.e. Rs. 1,40,000/- Per Acre.

Rs. 58,05,000/- Value of the Orange trees having at about 6 years old at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per tree, 387 nos.

Rs. 10,00,000/- Value of ecalyptus trees (Nilgiri trees) having age 10 to 15 years, at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per tree, 500 Nos.

Rs. 2,50,000/- Value of AJAN Trees having age about years, that trees is 8 to 10 feet width & 30 to 40 feet heights at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per tree, 25 Nos.

Rs. 24,000/- Value of KADUNEEM Trees age about 20 years, having circumference 5 to 6 feet and height 20 to 25 feet valuation for each tree 3000/-.

Rs. 81,64,000/-         B.F.

Rs. 12,000/-           Value of the BER trees having age 17 years at the rate of
                       Rs.3,000/- per tree, 04 Nos.

Rs. 09,000/-           Value of Katsawap tree having 40 years circumference 5

to 6 at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per tree, O1 Nos.

Rs. 30,000/- Value of Stone Bunds having 4 feet in height and 3 feet in width and 1200 feet length.

Rs. 50,000/- Value of sugar-cane under submergence area which is standing in the said field at the time of acquired the land.

                                                        3                                    290.FA.1040-2016.odt


                                Rs. 25,000/-          Damages for acquisition of land and for change of
                                                      business/rehabilitation.

                                =========
                                Rs. 82,90,000/-       Total Amount.

                                Rs.   77,500/-        Less compensation paid by N.A. No.2.

                                ==========
                                Rs. 82,12,500/-       Diff. of value claimed vide this petition."
                                ==========

5. The learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2014 (page 7), after considering, the award passed in LAC No. 2189/2004 of the same Village of Gat No. 2/1-A and 2/1, had awarded the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per hectare for the land. The instances cited by the applicant/s, namely of Mouza Pimpalgaon has been discarded as it was beyond 2 to 4 Villages from the Village Bharad. Though, certain other judgments in LAC No. 83/2001, LAC No. 146/1999 have been relied upon, they have been discarded as they were of the neighboring Village in preference to the judgment in LAC No. 2189/2004, which was in respect of the same Village. At this juncture, Mr. Swaroop Bhattacharya, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and seeks a short adjournment on the ground that Mr. Gorle, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has taken ill, and therefore, he is not available, and on account of which, a request of adjournment is made, considering which, list the matter on 29.11.2022.

Signed By:SHRIKANT JUDGE DAMODHAR BHIMTE SD. Bhimte Signing Date:23.11.2022 14:40