V.I.D.C. Thr. Executive Engineer vs Keshavdeo S/O Khemdeo Bhaiswar And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8708 Bom

Bombay High Court

V.I.D.C. Thr. Executive Engineer vs Keshavdeo S/O Khemdeo Bhaiswar And Anr on 12 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:14126


                                                  1                     FA 1109.09

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

                              FIRST APPEAL NO.1109 OF 2009

                         Vidarbha Irrigation Development
                         Corporation, Through Executive
                         Engineer, Medium Project Division,
                         Nagpur, Tal. And Dist. Nagpur.    ..    Appellant

                                     ..Versus..

                         1)   Keshavdeo s/o Khemdeo Bhaiswar (dead)
                              Aged Major, Occ. Cultivator,
                              R/o. Khairi (Navghare), Mendki,
                              Tahsil Katol, Dist. Nagpur.

                              Respondent No.1 - Legal Heirs'

          Amendment           1 (a) - Champabai wd/o Keshavrao Bhaiswar,
          as per Court                Aged 77 years, Occ. Household,
          Order dated                 R/o. at Isapur (Bu), Tah. Katol,
          03/12/2021.
                                      Dist. Nagpur.

                              1 (b) - Sunil Keshavdeo Bhaiswar,
                                     Age 49 years, Occ. Cultivation,
                                     R/o. at Isapur (Bu.) Tah. Katol,
                                     Dist. Nagpur.

                         2)   The State of Maharashtra,
                              Through the Collector,
                              Nagpur.                      ..      Respondents

                                           ............
                         Shri J.B. Kasat, Adv. a/w Shri Vinay Dahat, Advocate
                         for Appellant.
                         Shri G.I. Dipwani, Advocate for L.Rs. of Respondent
                         No.1.
                         Shri S.C. Joshi, AGP for Respondent No.2/State.
                                           .............
                             2                  FA 1109.09




              CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
              RESERVED ON     : 14.11.2025.
              PRONOUNCED ON : 12.12.2025.


JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant-

VIDC and the Respondents.

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

the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc

District Judge-8, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case

No.187/2002 decided on 31.3.2008, whereby the learned

District Judge has awarded the additional market price of

Rs. 2,76,775/- towards 62 orange trees from the acquired

land.

3. In the present appeal, the challenge to the

judgment and order at the instance of the Appellant-VIDC

is to the market value determined by the learned

Reference Court towards trees. According to them, the

reliance placed by the learned Reference Court to the

evidence of the valuer is not pragmatic in the matter, 3 FA 1109.09

particularly in the light of Government Circular dated

27.12.1990.

4. It is the submission of the appellant that average

capacity of fruit bearing trees should be as per prescribed

average yield in terms of Government Circulation, dated

27.12.1990. However, in the present case, the fruit

bearing of the trees which were determined by the valuer

is recorded in excess than average yield prescribed in the

Government Circulation dated 27.12.1990 and thereby

wrongly granted enhanced compensation. On this count

appellant challenged the judgment and order passed by

the learned Reference Court.

5. To understand the controversy in the present

matter, it will be relevant to consider the basic facts of

the matter.

6. In the present case, admittedly on 22.01.1998,

the State Government issued Notification under section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the Project of

Chikhali Nala. For that purpose, the land of village 4 FA 1109.09

Mendki, Tahsil-Katol, District-Nagpur was acquired for

the public purpose. The respondent, who was holding the

land ad-measuring to the extend of 0.50 HR from field

Survey No.77, P.H. No.4, Mouza Khairi Navghare, Tahsil

Katol, District Nagpur, was acquired by the Appellant-

VIDC and, thereby, awarded the compensation of

Rs.23,225/- for total 62 orange trees.

7. The respondent, being dissatisfied with the

compensation amount, filed the reference proceeding.

According to them, LAO failed to pay adequate

compensation towards land and other structure of the

land so also it was the contention that though there were

standing orange trees, same were not considered and no

compensation has been awarded towards the same.

Hence, they claimed enhancement of the compensation

before the Reference Court.

8. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the

respondent, deceased Keshavdeo K. Bhaiswar entered

into the witness box and demonstrated entitlement for

enhancement in compensation. In support of his 5 FA 1109.09

submission, respondent also examined the expert in the

subject of horticulture namely Sharad Bajirao Umale

(Exh.31) and discharged their burden to demonstrate

that they are entitled for the enhancement of

compensation.

9. On behalf of the appellant, Special Land

Acquisition Officer namely Sanjay Bhaiyyaji Daine was

examined in the matter. He has reiterated the fact that

the valuation done by his predecessor is correct and on

the basis of record available before him, he has deposed

before the Reference Court.

10. In the background of above oral as well as

documentary evidence produced on record by the parties,

learned Reference Court has decided the matter by the

impugned judgment and order dated 31/03/2008 and

granted enhancement towards fruit bearing trees and rest

of the claim was rejected.

11. In the present appeal challenge to the award of

Reference Court is only to the market value of fruit 6 FA 1109.09

bearing trees determined by the Reference Court, on the

basis of the Circular issued by the Agriculture, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Business Development and Fisheries

Business Department Fruit Production Class, dated

27.12.1990. Therefore, I have gone through the Circular.

The perusal of this Circular, shows that the State

Government had issued certain guidelines to the Land

Acquisition Officer at the time of acquisition of land. It is

stated in the Circular that while acquiring the land, the

Land Acquisition Officer before determining the correct

market value of the fruit bearing trees should confirm the

valuation report from Horticulture Department and after

receiving the said report determined the market value of

the land. In the said Circular, average yield statement of

fruit trees is given. As per circular, for the orange trees, if

the age of the tree is between 5 to 8 years, it's average

yield should be 150 to 300 fruits (15 to 30 kg) and if the

tree is above 9 years, then it's average yield should be

400 to 900 fruits (40 to 90 kg).

7 FA 1109.09

12. In the light of this submission made by the

appellant, it is clear that this exercise is required to be

done by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the

final award. Therefore, I have gone through the record.

The perusal of the record shows that in final award, it is

recorded that on the basis of valuation report forwarded

by Horticulture and Forest Department, the details of

payment of compensation to the land owners is recorded

in E- statement. As per E- statement respondent-claimant

was paid Rs.23,225/- towards the compensation of the

trees. However, there is no explanation nor any

document enclosed along with the award showing that

how this value has been determined by the Land

Acquisition Officer.

13. If the circular is to be relied upon, then it was

the duty of the appellant to establish before the

Reference Court as to how they have determined the

valuation of the trees 62 orange trees of Rs.23,225/-. The

perusal of the evidence of the Special Land Acquisition

Officer is totally silent on this issue nor by any 8 FA 1109.09

documentary evidence it has been disclosed as to how

they reached to this conclusion. There is no whisper of

any kind as to how that amount has been determined

while preparing the final award.

14. Per contra, the appellant has examined the

expert before the Reference Court. The evidence of

expert is at Exh.31. This expert has specifically stated

that he was working as a Professor to teach Horticulture

subject which is relating to the fruit trees at Government

College of Agricultural, Nagpur. He further stated that he

had worked with Regional Fruit Research Station, Katol

for about five years as an Expert Horticulturist.

According to him, the Regional Fruit Research Station,

Katol is the only Research Station of its kind in India

where the research work on orange and citrus fruit is

carried out. He has total experience of 35 years of

valuing the fruit trees. He further stated that while doing

the valuation, he has gone through the various

Government Circular and Research issued by Government

of Maharashtra for valuation of fruit trees for the purpose 9 FA 1109.09

of calculation. Hence, considering his experience of

valuation, his evidence cannot be brushed aside in

absence of any cogent or substantial reasons in the

matter.

15. In respect of 62 orange trees which was

admittedly standing in the field of the respondent, he

stated that the fruits bearing of 150 kg as a minimum

yield for each tree. He clarified that this 150 kg. is of

two flushes i.e. 'Ambiya Bahar' and 'Mrug Bahar'.

According to him, out of one flush, the agriculturist can

certainly take the yield and, therefore, on the basis of this

calculation, he has drawn the calculation that per tree

was having an average yield of about 150 kg. Per year.

16. This witness further stated that in the year 1995-

96 the average price of orange tree was about Rs.630/-

per quintal. Therefore, as per his valuation report Exh.36

he has calculated that the value of each tree was

Rs.9,214/- per tree.

10 FA 1109.09

17. In the cross-examination of this witness, the only

thing which appellant has brought on record is that on

the date of visit to the agricultural field, he was not

registered with the Institution of Valuers (Exh.35) which

is the institute who issued the certificate of fellow of the

Institution of Valuers. The Certificate produced by valuer

namely Sharad B. Umale is dated 26.6.1999. Appellant

did not cross examined on the point of of yield of trees

and not referred anywhere the circular to substantiate it's

submission.

18. In the background of above said evidence, the

learned Reference Court has evaluated the evidence and

specifically held that by considering the fact that though

valuer recorded the market value of the orange tree is

Rs.9,214/- by recording reasons, learned Tribunal has

considered the reduced rate Rs.5,000/- for orange trees.

Hence, it is not the case that the Reference Court has

blindly accepted the valuation report of the expert. The

perusal of the impugned order further shows that the

learned Reference Court has also considered the location 11 FA 1109.09

of the field and by relying upon the judgment delivered

in L.A.C. No.167/2003 has determined the correct

valuation of the orange trees.

19. In this regard, it will be relevant to consider the

judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench in the case

of Narayan Yashwanta Kapse .vs. State of Maharashtra

and others, reported in 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 391, wherein

the Coordinate Bench observed in Para 11 and 13 as

under :

11. It is discernible that the learned Reference Court adopted the superficial approach to discard the evidence of Valuer Dr. Patil. The findings are found rest on misconception of provision of Evidence Act. It would fallacious to appreciate that the evidence of expert Dr. Patil was not within the ambit of section 60 of the Evidence Act. It is to be borne in mind that the provision of section 60 of Evidence Act contemplates that if the oral evidence of witness refers to an opinion, it must be the evidence of the person, who holds that opinion on these grounds. The section 61 of the Evidence Act mandates that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. The Law postulates that the contents of document must be proved either by production of the document which is called primary evidence or by copies or oral accounts of the contents, which would be considered as secondary evidence.

13. Be that as it may, the evidence of Horticulturist Dr. Patil is essential to be appreciated in this matter to determine the just and appropriate valuation of trees under acquisition. There was no any endeavour on the part of respondent-Government authority to produced and proved any other report of Government valuer from Horticultural Department to lend support to the valuation of the trees finanalized by the SLAO. Moreover, in view of 12 FA 1109.09

legal guidelines delineated by Honourable Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652, the valuation report of Dr. Patil is only available on record being document produced and proved in this case. Therefore, it is to be taken into consideration for assessment of value of trees of appellant under acquisition.

20. Considering this legal position, in my opinion,

there is no legal impediment to appreciate the evidence

of the valuer which is supported with valuation report

along with its elite documents. The report further found

that there is a reference of Government Circular which

was relied by him while preparing the report. Hence, the

report which was not disproved, by any concrete

evidence or by leading evidence of any expert from state

can't be discarded in the matter. Moreover as stated

earlier, this valuer was a Professor and having a vast

experience of valuation which is not disputed in the

matter, hence there is no reason to disbelieve his report

in the matter.

21. It is further pertinent to note that E-statement

which is a part and parcel of the final award no where

disclosed how the compensation towards the per tree was 13 FA 1109.09

determined towards orange and lemon trees. No person

from Horticulture Department was examined by the

State/Acquiring Body for ascertaining the value of each

tree, particularly when it is not in dispute that 62 trees

were in existence in the field of the respondent. Hence in

absence of expert evidence from the side of the State, the

court has to rely only on the evidence of the expert

examined by the respondent.

22. It is also pertinent to note that the Coordinate

Bench of this court, while determining the value of the

orange tree arising out of the same land acquisition

proceeding and of the same village, has determined the

value of orange tree in between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.5.500/-

per orange tree. For that purpose, it will be relevant to

refer the judgment delivered by this court in First Appeal

No.1649/2008, decided on 30.10.2018, First Appeal

No.453/2010 along with Cross-objection No.10/2011

decided on 23.9.2019 and First Appeal No.403/2009,

decided on 5.3.2019.

14 FA 1109.09

23. The respondent also brought to my notice the

recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition

No.97/2021 (Saraswatabai Motiram Tayade and

others .vs. VIDC & Anr.) decided on 18.8.2025, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the land

owners, who are similarly situated, are entitled for the

same compensation. It is held that once the acquiring

body has accepted the judgment of Coordinate Bench,

then there is no reason to take any other view in the

matter.

24. Considering the consistent view of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India that on the ground of parity, the

land owners should be given the same compensation,

I am of the considered opinion that the respondents are

also entitled for the same. Market value determined by

Reference Court is therefore found to be legal and valid

in the matter.

25. In the light of above observation, in my opinion,

there is no merit in the present appeal and accordingly 15 FA 1109.09

the present appeal is stands dismissed.

(Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande

Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/12/2025 17:05:14