[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Keshav S/O Manik Hinge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:36028
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.375 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through - The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub- Divn., Patoda, ... Appellants
Dist. Beed (Orig. Respondents)
Versus
1. Uddhav Ashru Hinge,
Age : 32 Years, Occu : Agriculturist,
R/o. Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Indrawanibai Dattoba Hinge,
Age : 70 years,
3. Tulsabai Ramnath Jogdand,
Age : 65 years,
N. A. No.4, R/o. Belora, Tq. Shirpur
& N. A. No.5, R/o. Dhanora, ... Respondents
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Beed. (R. No. 1 - Ori. Claimants )
(R. Nos.2 & 3 Ori. Nos. 4 & 5)
.....
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6392 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.375 OF 2016
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
2
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
1. Parmeshwar Dattu Hinge,
Age - 35 Years, Occu - Agriculturist.
2. Narayan Dattu Hinge,
Age - 30 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
3. Rajabhau Dattu Hinge,
Age 40 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
(Ori. Claimants)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
Lahu Haribhau Kamble,
Age 55 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.374 OF 2016
3
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn.,
Patoda, Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
1. Prabhakar Sahebrao Hinge,
Age 30 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Mahadeo Sahebrao Hinge,
Age-25 yrs, Occ - Agril.
3. Ramnath Dadaba Hinge,
Age- 40 yrs, Occ - Agril.
4. Raghunath Dadaba Hinge,
Age-35 yrs, Occ - Agril.
5. Baburao Dadaba Hinge,
Age-30 yrs, Occ - Agril.
N.A.Nos. 4 to 7,
R/o Munguswadi, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmedngar. ...Respondents
(R. No. 1 Ori. Claimants)
(R. Nos.2 to 5 Ori. Nos.4 to 7)
....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1336 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation,
Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
4
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
Bhagwan s/o Sakharam Hinge (died)
Through L.Rs.
1-A) Pradeep Bhagwan Hinge,
Age: 52 years, Occu. Agriculture,
1-B) Sunil s/o Bhagwan Hinge (Died)
Through his L.Rs.
1-B-1) Jayshri w/o Sunil Hinge
Age: 42 years, Occu. Agri.
1-B-2) Priyanka w/o Sunil Pawar
Age: 22 years, Occu. Agri.
1-B-3) Pratibha w/o Nanasaheb Sawant
Age: 20 years, Occu. Agri.
1-B-4) Pankaj s/o Sunil Hinge,
Age: 19 years, Occu. Agri.
Both R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi, ... Respondents
District: Ahmednagar. (Orig. Claimants)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1338 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No.13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda, Dist. Beed.
.. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
5
Versus
1. Ramesh Uttam Hinge,
Age- 55 yrs, Occu. Agriculturist,
2. Ashok Uttam Hinge,
Age-30 yrs, Occu. Agriculturist,
3. Bandu Uttam Hinge,
Age- 25 yrs, Occu. Agriculturist,
All R/o. Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. Uddhav Ashru Hinge,
Age- 38 yrs, Occu. Agriculturist.
5. Navnath Punja Hinge,
Age- 55 yrs, Occu. Agriculturist,
6. Sandipan Puna Hinge,
Age- 50 yrs, Occu. Agriculturist,
7. Sundarabai Namdeo Hinge,
Age- 80 yrs,
8. Sushilabai Uttam Hinge,
Age- 55 yrs,
All R/o. Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
9. Shakuntalabai Kakasaheb Kharat,
Age- 40 yrs., R/o. Malegaon,
Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed ... Respondents
(Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Ori. Claimants)
(Respondent Nos.4 to 9 Ori. Respondents)
.....
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12790 OF 2014
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1338 OF 2016
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1339 OF 2016
6
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer, Minor Irrigation,
Sub-Divn., Patoda, Dist. Beed. ...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
1. Sandipan Punja Hinge,
Age 45 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Navnath Punja Hinge,
Age- 55 yrs, Occ. Agril.
3. Abasaheb Baburao Hinge,
Age- 60 yrs, Occ. Agril.
4. Raosaheb Baburao Hinge,
Age- 50 yrs, Occ. Agril.
Non-Applicant nos. 4 to 6,
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi, ...Respondents
Dist. Ahmedngar. (R. No. 1 Ori. Claimants)
(R. Nos.2 to 4 Ori. Nos. 4 to 6)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No.13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
7
Versus
1. Sheshrao Kundlik Hinge,
Age 70 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
2. Atmarao Sheshrao Hinge,
Age 45 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
3. Bhagwan Sheshrao Hinge,
Age 40 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
4. Bhausaheb Tukaram Hinge,
Age 45 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
5. Raosaheb Tukaram Hinge,
Age 50 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
6. Sandip Tukaram Hinge,
Age-40 yrs
7. Shivaji Tukaram Hinge,
Age-35 yrs
N.A. No.4 & 5
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
...Respondents
(R. Nos. 1 to 5 Ori. Claimants)
(R. No. 6 & 7 Ori. R. Nos. 4 & 5)
.....
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10489 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2016
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1342 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
8
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
1. Santram Punja Hinge,
Age 65 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o. Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Gahininath Punja Hinge,
Age 60 Years.
3. Sandipan Punja Hinge,
Age 45 Years.
4. Navnath Punja Hinge,
Age 55 Years.
5. Baliram Punja Hinge,
Age 50 Years.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
(Respondent 1 Ori. Claimants)
(Respondent Nos.2 to 5 Ori. Respondent Nos.4 to 7)
....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1346 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
9
Versus
1. Dinkar Natha Hinge,
Age 35 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Shakuntala Ashru Hinge
3. Dashrath Ashru Hinge
4. Ganubai Bhaskar Hinge
Age-35 yrs
5. Ashok Bhaskar Hinge
Age-21 yrs,
6. Kalyan Ramkisan Hinge
Age-30 yrs
7. Pandurang Ramkisan Hinge
Age-25 yrs
8. Bhagirathibai Ramkisan Hinge
Age-55 yrs
N.A. Nos.4 to 10
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
(R. No. 1 Ori. Claimants)
(R. Nos. 2 to 8 Ori. R. Nos. 4 to 10)
......
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
10
1. Baliram Punja Hinge,
Age 40 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Santram Punja Hinge,
Age - 65 Years, Occ. Agril.
3. Gahininath Punja Hinge,
Age - 60 Years, Occ. Agril.
4. Sandipan Punja Hinge,
Age-45 Years, Occ. Agril.
Non- Applicant Nos. 4 to 6
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
(R. No.1 Ori. Claimants)
(R. Nos. 2 to 5 Ori. R. Nos. 4 to 6)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1344 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
1. Vitthal s/o Narayan Hinge ... Died
Through legal heirs :-
1-A. Shivaji s/o Vitthal Hinge
Age: 41 years, occu:- Agril
1-B. Ajinath s/o Vitthal Hinge
Age: 33 years, occu:- Agril
11
1-C. Dwarkabai w/o Baban Kashid
Age: 35 years, occu:- Agril
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Dattu Narayan Hinge,
Age : 60 Years, Occu : Agriculturist,
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar
3. Deubai Kisan Shelke,
Age : 65 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. Vadgaon, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
(Respondents 1 & 2 Ori. Claimants)
(Respondent 4 Ori. Respondent)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1341 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
Devrao Nathu Chavate,
Age 50 Years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
.....
12
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1347 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn., Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Hinge,
Age 53 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
(Ori. Claimants)
....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1348 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Beed Division,
Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn.,
Patoda, Dist. Beed. ... Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
1. Sushilabai Ashru Hinge
Age 60 Years, Occu. Agriculturist.
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Indrayani Dattoba Gawate,
Age - 70 Years.
13
3. Tulsabai Rangnath Jogdand,
Age- 65 Years.
N.A. Nos. 2 R/o Belora,
Tq. Shirur and Non-Applicant No.3
R/o Dhanora, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed. ...Respondents
(R. No.1 Ori. Claimants)
(R. Nos. 2 & 3 Ori. R. Nos. 4 & 5)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1349 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through- The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 13, Ahmednagar.
2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation,
Beed Division, Dist. Beed.
3. The Dy. Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub-Divn.,
Patoda, Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
Versus
Bhaurao Namdeo Shelke,
Age 70 Years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Munguswade, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
(Ori. Claimants)
.....
Ms. A. S. Deshmukh, AGP for the Appellants-State in respective Appeals.
Shri. D. R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the Respondents in respective Appeals.
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
Reserved on : DECEMBER 01, 2025
Pronounced on : DECEMBER 18, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
. These 16 (sixteen) First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act (for short, 'L.A. Act') are filed by the State of
Maharashtra against the common Judgment and Order / Award dated
21.02.2012 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court') granting
enhanced compensation to the Respondents / Claimants towards
acquisition of their lands and the fruit bearing trees. As common
submissions are advanced, all these Appeals are decided by this common
Judgment.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present Appeals, are as under:
2.1. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated for construction of
tank under the name 'Ukanda Chakla Minor Irrigated Tank No.3" at
village Munguswadi, Tal. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. The Notification
under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was issued on 23.04.1998 and published
in the daily newspaper on 26.04.1998. Section 6 Notification was issued
on 08.04.1999. The joint measurement was carried out. The
requirement was for 7-Hectares, 34-R land. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer (for short, 'SLAO') classified the lands as per the assessment rate
and determined the market price @ Rs.40,500/- for Group No.I,
Rs.44,500/- for group No.II, Rs. 51000/- for group No.III, and Rs.
61,000/- for group No.IV. The SLAO awarded the compensation for
lands, trees, well, construction and embankment. The SLAO declared the
Award on 29.04.2000.
2.2. The Respondents / Claimants filed their respective Reference
Applications under Section 18 of the L.A. Act which were referred to the
learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. They claimed
the compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Hectare and compensation for
fruit bearing trees etc. The Reference Applications were resisted by the
State by filing Written-statements. The evidence was led in the Land
Reference Application No.27/2003 and the evidence led therein was
adopted in the other Reference Applications. Considering the evidence
brought on record, the Reference Applications were partly allowed.
The learned Reference Court awarded the compensation
@ Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) per Hectare for Jirayat land and
Rs.1,50,000/- per Hectare for seasonally irrigated land and granted
compensation towards the fruit bearing trees based on the Assessment
Report of the Horticulturist, examined by the Claimants.
3. It is submitted by the learned AGP for the Appellants that, as far
as the compensation awarded for the acquired land is concerned,
there is no serious challenge to the same as the same is within four (4)
times of the rate granted by the SLAO. Also the enhanced compensation
for the land was properly enhanced by the learned Reference Court on
the basis of evidence available on record. She submitted that, the
challenge is to the compensation awarded for the fruit bearing trees. No
separate compensation can be granted to the fruit bearing trees. For the
future age of the trees, the multiplier of 15 is taken into consideration
which is excessive and the same is required to be brought down to 8.
The Valuer was the expert in the agricultural land and not for the trees
or horticulture. The expert visited the land in 1998 and certificate was
issued in 2002 which show that, he was not the expert at the relevant
time. The expert valued the trees three (3) times more than the
valuation done by the SLAO. The compensation for trees was enhanced
as per the request of the Claimants and the same was on higher side.
The interest awarded by the learned Reference Court is required to be
modified in the light of the Judgment of this Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 AIR (Bom.) 141. In
support of her submissions, she relied on the following Judgments:
(a) State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another
etc., AIR 1996 SC 106
(b) Ambya Kalya Mhatre (Dead) Through LRs and
Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents /
Claimants that, the learned Reference Court has rightly assessed the
evidence available on record and granted enhanced compensation.
Compensation for the land comes within four (4) times and for which
the State has taken decision not to challenge such Awards. The
compensation for trees is granted on the basis of documentary as well as
oral evidence of the Reports of the Horticulturist. The Valuer filed his
Report after visiting on the spot and verifying the documents. No
separate compensation is granted for the Well, Pipeline etc. Multiplier of
10 for the future age of trees is properly granted. No interference was
called for in the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference
Court and the Appeals be dismissed. In support of the said submissions,
he placed reliance on the following Judgments :
(i) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (regd.) Faridkot and Ors v.
State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2721,
(ii) Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L. Rs v. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, AIR 2012 SC 481
(iii) Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar v. Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation, Nagpur and Ors etc., AIR
2021 SC 4393
(iv) Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) By L.Rs. And Ors v. State of
Maharashtra, 2011 AIR SCW 5749
(v) Balwan Singh and Ors v. Land Acquisition Collector
and Anr, AIR 2016 SC 1565
(vi) Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil etc v. State of
Maharashtra, AIROnline 2021 SC 789,
(vii) Pratap Singh (Dead) Through Lrs and Ors v. Shiv
Ram (Dead) Through Lrs, AIR 2020 SC 1382.
(viii) Smt. Sudha Devi v. M. P. Narayanan and others, AIR
1988 SC 1381.
(ix) Shaikh Imambi v. Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition), Telegu Ganga Project, AIR 2011 SC
(Supp) 513
(x) Saraswatabai Motiram Tayade and Ors v. Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation and Anr,
AIROnline 2025 SC 1185
5. There is no dispute in respect of the extent of land acquired
and the purpose of acquisition. The learned Reference Court in
paragraph no.1 of the Judgment have given the detailed description of
the acquired lands. Since there is no dispute on the said aspect, there is
no need to discuss on the same. It is clear from the Judgment of the
learned Reference Court that, the market rate of the acquired land is
granted on the basis of the sale instances brought on record by the
Claimants in evidence of witness examined by them i.e. Shri. Ramesh
Uttam Hinge. There is no dispute that, the compensation for land is
enhanced with reference to the said sale instances. No serious challenge
is raised to the quantum of enhanced compensation determined by the
learned Reference Court in respect of the acquired land. More so,
according to the learned Advocate for the Respondents / Claimants, the
amount of enhanced compensation determined by the learned Reference
Court is within 4 (four) times of the compensation awarded or
determined by the SLAO and in view of the policy decision of the
Government, the challenge to the extent of enhanced compensation for
land will not survive. This aspect is not disputed by the learned AGP for
the State. Thus, no interference is called for in the rate determined by
the learned Reference Court in respect of the acquired lands.
6. One of the grounds raised by learned AGP is that, the
Respondents / Claimants are not entitled for the separate compensation
for the fruit bearing trees as compensation is awarded for the acquired
land. The learned Advocate for the Respondents - Claimants submitted
that, since the compensation for land is granted by considering the sale
statistics or the sale-deeds, the learned Reference Court has rightly
considered and granted separate compensation for the fruit bearing
trees.
7. In Ambya Kalya Mhatre (supra), the relevant observations
made in paragraph nos.34 and 35 in respect of the question no. (iii) are
reproduced below:
"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 vs. Gurcharan
Singh: (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 Section3(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 of 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."
8. In Bhupendra (supra), the afoersaid Judgment in Ambya
Kalya Mhatre is considered and the Claimants therein was held entitle
for compensation. Therefore, in view of the above referred settled
position under the law and admitted position that the enhanced
compensation is determined with reference to the sale instances, I find
no merit in the contention of the learned AGP that, the learned
Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for fruit
bearing trees.
9. The other ground raised by the learned AGP for the State is
that of multiplier for the future age of trees. For this, the Judgment in
State of Haryana (supra) is relied upon by her wherein it is observed
that, 'Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8
years multiplier as it is settled law of this court in catena of decisions
that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from
the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier.
For agricultural land 12 - years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier .'
In the case at hand, the learned Reference Court has granted the
multiplier of 10 for the future age of trees. The said submission in
respect of multiplier of 15 is contrary to the factual aspects in the matter.
The Judgments in Shaikh Imambi (supra) and Saraswatabai Motiram
Tayade (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has approved the multiplier
higher than 8.
10. The observations in the Judgment show that, the learned
Reference Court has considered the evidence available on record
including the Valuation Report in determining the compensation for the
fruit bearing trees. The learned Reference Court also took into
consideration the relevant Government Resolution which formed the
basis to fix the market rate in respect of the fruits and observed that,
there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Expert Valuer.
The decision of granting compensation for the fruit bearing trees is
supported by proper reasons. The observation in the Judgment that
Witness - the Expert Valuer was Horticulture Expert is supported by the
documents. There is observation by the learned Reference Court that,
the Report of the Horticulturist and the Government Valuer's Report
support each other and only there is difference in respect of yearly
expected income and the market price. The amount of compensation for
fruit bearing trees awarded by the learned Reference Court is supported
by the evidence on record and supported with acceptable reasons.
Hence, no interference is called for in the multiplier and in the amount
of enhanced compensation determined and awarded by the learned
Reference Court.
11. As regards the contention of the learned AGP that, the
interest granted by the learned Reference Court is from the date of
taking possession of the lands, which is not in consonance with the
decision of this Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra), there is merit in
this contention. This aspect is not disputed by the learned Advocate for
the Respondents / Claimants. Therefore, the operative order of the
Judgment and Award in respect of the interest is concerned, the same
needs modification to bring it in consonance with the above referred
decision in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).
12. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for
in the enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court,
except the interest part. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(I) The Appeals are partly allowed to the extent of the interest
granted by the learned Reference Court.
(II) The interest be calculated from the date of the passing of the
Award under Section 11 of the LA Act.
(III) The Award passed by the learned Reference Court in each
Reference stands modified to the extent of interest as above.
(IV) The amount, if any, deposited by the Appellants - State under the
Award be permitted to be withdrawn by the Claimants along with
interest accrued thereon, if not withdrawn earlier. The same be done
after following due process of law.
(V) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(VI) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference
Court.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/12/2025 17:49:51
