V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe Engineer, vs Smt. Ashabai Wd/O Umrao Bhaiswar And 3 ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8709 Bom

Bombay High Court

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe Engineer, vs Smt. Ashabai Wd/O Umrao Bhaiswar And 3 ... on 12 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:14128


                                              1                 FA 1095.09

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

                          FIRST APPEAL NO.1095 OF 2009


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


                                 ..Versus..


                     1)   Smt. Ashabai wd/o Umrao Bhaiswar,
                          Aged Major.

                     2)   Yogesh s/o Umrao Bhaiswar,
                          Major.

                     3)   Chandrashekhar s/o Umrao Bhaiswar
                          Aged Major,
                          R/o. Mendhki, Tahsil-Katol,
                          District-Nagpur.

                     4)   The State of Maharashtra,
                          Through the Collector,
                          Nagpur.

   Amendment         5)   Anita w/o Raju Bhajan,
   carried out as         Aged Adult, Occupation-Nil,
   per court order        R/o. Mendki, Tq. Katol,
   Dt. 16/6/2023
                          Dist. Nagpur.

                     6)   Manisha w/o Dipak Dhapake,
                          Aged about 39 years,
                          Occupation-Nil,
                          R/o. Khapa (Ghollar), Tq. Katol,
                          Dist. Nagpur.               ..      Respondents
                              2                   FA 1095.09




     Shri J.N. Kasat, Adv. a/w Shri Vinay Dahat, Advocate
     for Appellant.
     Shri G.I. Dipwani, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
     and 5.
     Shri S.C. Joshi, AGP for Respondent No.4/State.
     Shri P.K. Raulkar, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
                 ................


                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-6, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case

No.189/2002 decided on 30.04.2008, whereby the

learned District Judge has awarded the additional market

price of Rs.2,20,784/- towards 69 orange trees for the

acquired land.

3 FA 1095.09

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 on the

evidence of the valuer is not pragmatic in the matter,

particularly in the light of Government Resolution dated

27.12.1990.

4. It is the submission of the appellant that average

fruit bearing capacity of trees should be around the

average yield prescribed by the Government Circular

dated 27.12.1990, but here in the present case, the fruit

bearing of the trees determined by the valuer is in excess

than average yield prescribed in the Government Circular

dated 27.12.1990. Hence, on this count, there have

challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned

Reference Court dated 30.04.2008.

5. To understand the controversy in the present

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

the matter.

4 FA 1095.09

6. In the present case, admittedly on 22.01.1998,

the State Government issued Notification Under Section

4 (1) of the L.A Act, the land of village Mendki, Tahsil-

Katol, District-Nagpur was acquired for the public

purpose for Project of Chikhali Nala. The respondent,

who was holding the land ad-measuring 1.30 HR from

field Survey No.76/1, P.H No. 4 was acquired by the

Appellant-VIDC and thereby awarded the compensation

of Rs.1,24,216/- for fruit bearing trees and Rs. 37,023/-

was paid for acquired land respectively.

7. The respondent, being dissatisfied with the

compensation amount, filed the reference proceeding

before the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-6, Nagpur. It is

their main contention that though there were standing

orange trees, same were not considered and no adequate

compensation has been awarded towards the Trees.

Hence, they claimed enhancement of the compensation

before the Reference Court.

8. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the

respondent, the Power of Attorney Holder namely Yogesh 5 FA 1095.09

Umrao Bhaiswar entered into the witness box and

demonstrated by way of oral evidence his entitlement for

the enhance compensation. In support of submission,

appellant also examined the expert in the subject of

horticulture namely Sharad Bajirao Umale and discharge

the initial burden as to how 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 said oral evidence as

well as documentary evidence produced on record by the

parties, the learned Reference Court has decided the

matter by the impugned judgment and order dated

30.04.2008. Learned Reference Court enhanced the

compensation only towards 69 orange trees and rest of

claim was rejected.

6 FA 1095.09

11. In the present appeal challenge is to the market

value and capacity of fruit bearing tree determined by the

Reference Court on the basis of Government Circular

issued by the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Business Development and Fisheries Business

Department Fruit Production Class, dated 27.12.1990.

12. I have gone through the Government Circular.

The perusal of this Government 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 said Circular that while acquiring

the land, the Land Acquisition Officer has to determine

the correct market value of the fruit bearing trees and he

should consult the Horticulture Department and after

receiving their consent or report determined the market

value of the land. In the said Government Circular,

average yield of fruit trees is given. As per Government

Circular, for the orange trees, if the age of the tree is

between 5 to 8 years, average yield is 150 to 300 fruits

(15 to 30 kg.) and if the tree is above 9 years, then yield 7 FA 1095.09

is between 400 to 900 fruits (40 to 90 kg).

13. 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 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, in E-statement

the details of payment of compensation to the land

owners is recorded. The respondent-claimant was

accordingly paid Rs.1,24,216/- towards the

compensation of the trees. But 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.

14. 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 at the rate of Rs.1,24,216, but the

perusal of the evidence of the Special Land Acquisition 8 FA 1095.09

Officer, no where disclosed the justification as to how he

reached to this conclusion. Rather there is not even

whisper as to how that amount has been determined

while preparing the final award.

15. Per contra, the appellant has examined the

expert before the Reference Court. The evidence of

expert is at Exh.39. 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 Agriculture, 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 Resolutions and Research issued by

Government of Maharashtra for valuation of fruit trees 9 FA 1095.09

for the purpose 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.

16. In respect of 69 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 took the yield and, therefore, on the basis of

this calculation, he has drawn the calculation that per

tree was having a yield of about 150 kg. Per year.

17. 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.42

he has calculated that the value of each tree at the rate of

Rs.9,214/- per tree.

10 FA 1095.09

18. 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 Institute of Valuers (Exh.41), the

certificate of fellow of the Institution of Valuers in the

name of valuer namely Sharad B. Umale is dated

26.6.1999 is subsequent to date of his visit to field. No

cross-examination has been conducted on the yield of

Trees determined by valuer. No suggestion has been given

about the Government Circular dated 27.12.1990. Hence

there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this

expert witness.

19. In the background of above said evidence of the

parties, the learned Reference Court has evaluated the

evidence and by considering the fact that the valuer

though recorded the market value of the orange tree is

Rs.9,214/- learned Reference Court has considered it

only Rs.5,000/-. Hence, it is not the case that the

Reference Court has blindly accepted the valuation report

of expert. The perusal of the impugned order shows that 11 FA 1095.09

the learned Reference Court has applied its mind and

considered other factors including location 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.

20. 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 12 FA 1095.09

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 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.

21. Hence, considering this legal position, in my

opinion, there is no illegality commited by the Refernce

Court to appreciate the evidence of the valuer which is

supported with valuation report and its elite documents.

22. The valuer report further found that there is a

reference of Government Resolution which was relied by

him while preparing the report. Hence, the report which

is not substantially disproved in the matter, and the

respondent substantially proved the fact that this valuer

was a Professor and having a vast experience of valuation

which is not disputed in the matter, there is no reason to

disbelieve his report in the matter.

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

the only document on record relied by Appellant to 13 FA 1095.09

determined the market value of Trees. But perusal of

same no where shows the basis on which the value of

trees was determined by state. No report of Horticulture

dept is enclosed with Award. No person from

Horticulture Department was examined by the

State/Acquiring Body for ascertaining the value of each

tree. Hence there is no option to this Court than to rely

the evidence of the expert examined by the respondent.

24. 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.

25. The respondent also brought to my notice the

recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 14 FA 1095.09

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 hold 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.

26. 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. Hence in

my opinion the market value determined by the

Reference Court towards trees is just and proper in the

matter.

27. In the light of above observation, I find no merit

in the present appeal and accordingly the present appeal

stands dismissed.

(Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande

Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/12/2025 17:07:06