Sau. Lilawati W/O Rambhau Kakde vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Honourable ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8457 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sau. Lilawati W/O Rambhau Kakde vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Honourable ... on 3 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:13427


                     fa 787-2010.doc                                                               1/18




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


                                                FIRST APPEAL NO.787/2010

                             Sau Lilawati w/o Rambhau Kakade
                             Aged 64 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
                             R/o Dongar Yawali, Tq. Morshi,
                             District- Amravati.
                                                                                            ... APPELLANT
                                               ...VERSUS...

                     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
                             Through Hon'ble Collector,
                             Amravati, Tq. & Distt. Amravati.

                     2.      The Special Land Acquisition
                             Officer, Minor Irrigation Works,
                             Amravati.

                     3.      The Executive Engineer,
                             Minor Irrigation Local Sector,
                             Division, Amravati.
                                                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Shri S.S. Shingane, Advocate for appellants
                     Shri S.C. Joshi, AGP for respondents/State
                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             CORAM :            PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

                             DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 26.11.2025
                             DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 03.12.2025


                     JUDGMENT





.                 Heard.

2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the

judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in LAC

No.80/2006. According to the appellant, who is original claimant

seeks enhancement in the present appeal towards the enhancement

of compensation of orange trees, which was not properly

determined by the Reference Court.

3. The appellant herein is the owner of the field Survey

No.27/2 admeasuring 1.21 HR of Mouza Ghod-deo, Tq. Morshi,

District Amravati. The respondents issued notice under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act on 09.02.2001 for the purpose of Ghoddev

Minor Irrigation Project. Under that project, the land owned by the

appellant admeasuring 1.21 HR along with Orange trees was

acquired.

4. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the meager

compensation to the appellant of Rs.12,090/- towards fruit-bearing

trees. The appellant being dissatisfied with the compensation

awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Officer preferred

reference before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati.

5. In support of the submission, the appellant through

Power of Attorney holder namely Devanand alias Nitin Rambhauji

Kakade, entered into the witness box and categorically stated about

the orange trees which were, according to him, nine years old at the

time of acquisition of the land. In short, the averments made in the

reference petition are reiterated in the evidence of the appellant.

6. It is seen from the record that the appellant was cross-

examined by the respondents. From the cross-examination, no

adverse was elicited to state that either there were no orange trees

nor it was full grown up fruit bearing trees. As such, the evidence of

appellant remained unshaken.

7. The appellant then examined the Valuer, namely

Subhash Ramraoji Tayade. This witness specifically stated that he

has inspected the orange trees and found that orange trees were

nine years old. According to him, he has considered trees' height,

girth, and spread for fixing the value of the trees. According to him,

the fruit-bearing capacity of each tree was near about 80 kg. per

annum. According to him, the market rates of the orange fruits

were Rs.839/- for 1000 Orange fruits. This witness has also proved

the valuation report prepared by him, which is brought on record as

exhibit 33. This witness was also cross-examined by the

respondents. In the cross-examination, it is admitted by this witness

that he is not a registered orchard valuer in the Gazette of

Government of Maharashtra. He also admitted that maintenance is

required for trees after it starts bearing the fruits. He further

admitted that the rate fixed by the APMC and the market is

required to be considered for determining the value of trees. Except

this, there is nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of this

witness.

8. The appellant then examined one Vijay Ramchandra

Kubde, who was the Secretary of APMC Warud. This witness on the

basis of record in the nature of registers maintained by APMC

Warud of yearly transactions of sale purchase and rate of

agriculture produce, adduced evidence before learned Reference

Court. As per his deposition in the year 1998-1999, orange fruits

per quintal came for sale in APMC Warud and it were sold for

Rs.1,68,06,524/-. As per the average rate in the year 1998-1999,

the orange fruits were Rs.698/- per quintal. Likewise in the year

1999-2000, the average rate was of Rs.938/- per quintal. This

witness, in the same manner, stated that for year 2000-2001, the

average rate of the orange fruits were Rs.671/- per quintal. This

witness was also cross- examined by the respondents, but nothing

was brought on record to state that the evidence rendered by this

witness is not believable.

9. In the background of above said factual position,

learned Reference Court proceeded to decide the reference. The

Reference Court in paragraph 11 of this judgment, though recorded

that Land Acquisition Officer has discriminated amongst the

farmers for valuation of trees, without considering the evidence

brought on record by the appellant and calculation done by the

appellant, simply recorded that "Considering average value of the

trees, the value of per orange tree is not less than of Rs.2000/- per

tree." Thus granted compensation towards orange trees Rs.2000/-

per tree.

10. It is the case of the appellant before the Reference

Court that his 1.21 HR land was acquired along with orange trees.

As such, he should be awarded the compensation separately from

the land acquired by the respondents as well as towards the full-

grown orange trees.

11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondents states

that the appellant cannot be permitted to claim higher

compensation than what he claimed before the Reference Court.

According to him, he has claimed Rs.7,00,000/- as enhanced

compensation and if the amount as per his calculation is awarded,

same would be more than Rs.7,00,000/-. Hence on this count, the

appeal is not tenable. No other submission is made by the

respondents to demonstrate as to how the grounds raised by the

appellant are not justified in the matter on merits.

12. In light of above factual position, I have heard both the

Counsel at length and perused the case laws which appellant has

relied upon.

13. The appellant then specifically relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Special Land

Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda and others reported in (2010) 5

SCC 708, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that

once the claimant has established on record the correct market

value of the land, then the burden is shifted to the State

Government to justify the award or to establish that the claim made

by the appellant is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the

case. This fact is clear from paragraph 29 of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced as under:

"29. It is a settled principle of law that, the onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India this Court held that the claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimant, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon. In this

very case, this Court stated the principles of awarding compensation and placed the matter beyond ambiguity, while also capsulating the factors regulating the discretion of the Court while awarding the compensation. This principle was reiterated by this Court even in Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority and the Court held as under: (SCC p. 620, para 12)

"12. As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more. That burden had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award."

Thus, the onus being primarily upon the claimants, they are expected to lead evidence to revert the same, if they so desire. In other words, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinize the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings."

14. The appellant then relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) through

LRs. And others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 9 SCC

325, it is held that if the land value had been determined with

reference to the statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby

vacant land, then necessarily the trees will have to be valued

separately. The paragraph Nos.34 and 35 of the judgment of this

Court are relevant in the matter. Same are reproduced as under:

"34. The High Court has also held that once the compensation is awarded for the land, there cannot be additional or separate compensation for the trees. For this purpose, the High Court has relied upon the following observations of this Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh5: (SCC p. 639, para 3)

"3. ... It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit-bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit- bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit-bearing trees. The definition of land includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land as distinct from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as firewood and

necessary compensation would be given."

35. We are afraid that the High Court has misread the said decision in regard to valuing the land and trees separately. If the land value had been determined with reference to the sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then necessarily, the trees will have to be valued separately. But if the value of the land has been determined on the basis of the sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is land with fruit-bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding the value of the trees. Further, if the market value has been determined by capitalizing the income with reference to yield, then also the question of making any addition either for the land or for the trees separately does not arise. In this case, the determination of market value was not with reference to the yield. Nor was the determination of market value in regard to the land with reference to the value of any orchard but was with reference to vacant agricultural land. In the circumstances, the value of the trees could be added to the value of the land."

15. In light of above said legal position, the appellant made

submission that they have proved before the Reference Court joint

measurement report (Exhibit 21), fruit valuation report (Exhibit 22)

and 7/12 extract (Exhibit 23). In respect of the sale instance, he has

relied upon the Exhibit 28, 29 and 30, which are of the same village

and also relied upon the Government Resolution as well as the

circular of the Director of Horticulture, as to how the calculation of

the trees is required to be done by applying the principles of

Miram's table.

16. According to the appellant, there is no dispute that

there were 200 orange trees on the acquired land. The 7/12 extract

produced on record and expert evidence, indicates the trees were

nine years old when the Notification was issued under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He contends that the rates, he

proved through the evidence of Vijay Kubde, the Secretary of

APMC, demonstrate a rate of Rs.889/- per 1000 orange trees.

Hence, the rate proved by him through the evidence of competent

witness, the learned Reference Court ought to have considered the

rate proved on the basis of Exhibit 39, 40 and 41, which is the

relevant record made available by the Secretary of APMC before the

Reference Court.

17. In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the

Reference Court without recording any reasons as to how he has

reached to the conclusion that valuation of per orange tree is

Rs.2000/- hold that appellant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.2000/- per tree.

18. Per contra, from the calculation done by the Land

Acquisition Officer, it is clear that by applying Miram's table, the

calculation has been done and granted Rs.62/- per orange tree and

thereby awarded Rs.12,090/- towards compensation of orange

trees.

19. In the background of above said factual position, the

appellant has relied upon the same Miram's table by considering the

valuation of each tree proved by him before the Reference Court.

From the evidence established on record, it is clear that through the

evidence of the Secretary of A.P.M.C., the appellant has proved

Rs.839/- for 1000 orange trees. As such, by applying Miram's Table,

the calculation comes as under:

For calculating 200 Orange Trees:-

For 800 fruits per tree = Rs. 839/- for 1000 fruits and for 800

fruits Rs.671/-. Therefore, Rs.671/- per tree. (Miram's table

calculations)

10% of Rs.671/- = Rs.604/-

Rs.25 cultivation cost = Rs.604 - Rs.25 = Rs.579/- per tree

Factor to be multiplied 7.948 X Rs.579/- per tree = Rs.4601.89/-

per tree

As such, considering this calculation Rs.4865.91/- comes for

each orange tree. Admittedly, there were 200 orange trees, hence

the total valuation comes Rs.9,20,378/- (Rs.4601 x 200)

20. In the present appeal, in respect of market value of

land, learned Reference Court in paragraph No.11 of its judgment,

has specifically recorded that enhancement towards orange trees

has been awarded on the basis of income capitalization method.

Therefore, in my opinion, appellant is not entitled for separate

compensation towards acquired land.

21. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (supra) will be relevant.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the value of land has been

determined by capitalizing the income with reference to yield, then

question of separate valuation of land does not arise. In the present

case, the valuation of orange trees is determined by income

capitalization method, therefore, appellant is not entitled for

separate compensation towards agriculture land.

22. The respondents, who are supposed to point out from

the record as to how the appellant is not entitled for the additional

compensation towards orange trees, takes no pains in the matter to

contravene the submission made by the appellant in the matter.

Only ground, which they have raised in the present appeal that

appellant cannot be granted more compensation than what he has

claimed in the reference proceeding.

23. I am of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to

award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true

market value and other relevant factors irrespective of the claim

made by the claimant. I am supported by the judgment of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vidarbha Irrigation Development

Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Laxman Seetaram Neulkar and another

reported 2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 198, wherein this Court has occasioned

to deal with the issue as identical in the present matter. This Court

by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has held in paragraph Nos. 21, 40 and 41 as under:

"21. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana, the Apex Court held that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner (emphasis supplied). The Apex Court noted that while the pre-amendment provision put a cap on the maximum and the reference Court could not have granted compensation beyond the amount claimed, the amendment removes the cap on the maximum and au contraire puts a cap on the minimum i.e. the compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana, it is categorically articulated that the amount of compensation that a Court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant."

"40. In a relatively recent decision Ramla and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2019) 2 SCC 192, the Apex Court has held that there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claim amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The relevant observations read thus :

"6. Though the claimant had claimed a total compensation of 25,00,000/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the

same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The Courts are duty bound to award just compensation. [See the judgments of this Court in (a) Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, (b) Magma General Insurance vs. Nanu Ram, (c) Ibrahim vs. Raju]."

41. The duty of the Court determining the compensation under the Act is to determine just and fair compensation and to award compensation less than just and fair compensation on the premise that the Court is powerless to grant compensation exceeding the amount claimed would be doing disservice to the statutory duty. The decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the context of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act support such view."

24. Hence, I am of the opinion that irrespective of the

claim made by the appellant before the Reference Court, on the

basis of documentary as well as oral evidence, which he has

brought on record, is entitled to the compensation as per true

market value. Hence, the appellant is entitled for enhancement to

the compensation. For the aforesaid reason, the judgment passed

by the Reference Court needs modification as under:

ORDER

i) The appeal is partly allowed.

ii) The judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 in LAC

No.80/2006 is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled

to compensation of Rs.9,20,378/- towards orange trees (Rs.4601.89

x 200 = 9,20,378/-) with all statutory benefits as per the provisions

of law.

iii) The appellant is not entitled for separate compensation

towards the acquired land as determined by the Reference Court in

the impugned judgment and order.

iv) Needless to mention here that the amount awarded by the

Reference Court needs to be deducted from the enhanced amount

by this Court towards the valuation of trees.

v) The rest of the award passed in LAC No.80/2006 dated

24/11/2009 is confirmed.

vi) The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced

amount within a period of four months, to the Registry of this

Court.

vii) The appellant is permitted to withdraw the enhance

compensation after deposit of the same by the respondents before

this Court.

25. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No

orders as to the costs.

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) R.S. Sahare

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/12/2025 16:29:06