Bombay High Court
Bharat Bhupendra Pawar Thr. P.O.A. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 23 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5937
-- 1 -- FA 261.2021 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2021
Bharat S/o Bhupendra Pawar,
age 35 years, Occ.: Agriculturist
R/o Khandala, Tq. Manora,
District : Washim .. Appellant
Through his power of attorney,
Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Washim
(Old District Akola)
2) The Land Acquisition Officer, Washim .. Respondents
(Old LAO Akola)
3) Executive Engineer, Washim
Division, Tq District Washim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.B.Mirza, Advocate for appellant.
Mrs.Mukta Kavimandan, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. M.A.Kadu, Advocate for respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATED : 23/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
PAGE 1 OF 6
-- 2 -- FA 261.2021 (J).odt
(2) The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
22/01/2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,
Mangrulpir (hereinafter referred to as ' Reference Court/Court') in LAC
No.02/2019 (Old LAC No.167/1999), whereby the claim of Adjat Tree
was partly allowed, has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of
compensation.
(3) The appellant/original applicant was the owner and
possessor of land Gat No.111 admeasuring 1H 1R of village Dhanora,
Taluka Manora, District Washim. (herein after referred to as 'Land')
Vide Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,(for
short- 'the Act') the Special Land Acquisition Officer had initiated the
land acquisition proceedings bearing LAC No.21/47/1995-1996, and
acquired the land. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the
Award on 31/03/1999. The Land Acquisition Officer granted
compensation at the rate of ₹ 40,000/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied
with the same, the appellant had filed a Reference before the learned
Reference Court, which was decided on 22/08/2008. Learned Reference
Court enhanced the claim in respect of agricultural land, by granting
compensation at the rate of ₹ 80,000/- per hectare, but no claim was
granted in respect of trees standing on the land. Being aggrieved by
the same, the claimant has preferred an appeal bearing No.08/2009
before this Court. This Court partly modified the Award to the extent of
PAGE 2 OF 6
-- 3 -- FA 261.2021 (J).odt
the land in question by granting compensation at the rate of ₹ 1,00,000
per hectare and remanded the matter back to the learned Reference
Court for adjudication afresh to determine the compensation in respect
of the Adjat trees.
(4) On remand, the learned Reference Court decided the matter
afresh on 22/01/2020 and partly allowed the claim in respect of the
Adjat trees. Learned Reference Court had directed the respondents to
pay compensation of ₹ 26,662/- for 139 Adjat trees standing on the
land, based on the valuation report as stated above. Additionally, it
provided a 30% solatium, along with other benefits as per the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Being dissatisfied with the
same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(5) Heard Mr. A.B. Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mrs.Mukta Kavimandan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. M.A. Kadu, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.3. Perused the impugned judgment and original
record. The following point arises for determination.
"(1) Whether any interference is required in the
impugned judgment and order ?"
(6) To substantiate the claim of the appellant learned counsel
vehemently argued that the learned Reference Court has not
PAGE 3 OF 6
-- 4 -- FA 261.2021 (J).odt
considered the evidence in respect of Adjat tree on record in its proper
perspective and erred in discarding to grant compensation of ₹ 1500/-
per Adjat tree and therefore, impugned judgment and order is required
to be modified.
(7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 submitted that the appellant has not adduced any
cogent and reliable evidence to claim an enhanced compensation
amount for the trees standing in the field. The learned Reference Court
has considered the evidence of the valuer on record and partly
enhanced the compensation as referred to above; therefore, no
interference is required in it.
(8) It appears that by order dated 24/02/2021, the appeal was
'Admitted'. It is pertinent to note that on 11/06/2025 during the
course of hearing, a query was put to the learned counsel for the
appellant to point out what evidence was available on record before the
learned Reference Court in respect of the valuation of Adjat trees or on
which basis, the appellant is claiming enhancement of compensation for
the said Adjat trees, at that time, he sought time to go through the
record. Today, when the matter is called upon, he fairly submitted that
no evidence is available on record or was adduced by the appellant in
that regard. He also failed to point out from the documentary evidence
that the appellant is entitled to compensation of ₹ 1500/- for each
PAGE 4 OF 6
-- 5 -- FA 261.2021 (J).odt
Adjat tree.
(9) On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned Judge has categorically observed that Land Acquisition Officer
did not pay compensation in respect of the Adjat trees. Further, it was
observed that no material/evidence was produced by the
appellant/original applicant before the Court, pointing out that the
valuation of the one Adjat tree was ₹ 1500/-. However, the applicant
relied on the valuation report (Exh. 65) regarding the Adjat trees,
which was prepared by the forest department. Wherein the valuation of
139 Adjat trees was shown as ₹ 26,662/-. Therefore, the learned
Reference Court accepted the same in absence of other cogent
evidence/material. Thus, the Court held that the applicant, i.e., the
appellant, had failed to adduce any cogent evidence to grant the rate of
₹ 1500/- per Adjat tree as claimed by him. Therefore, based on the
valuation report prepared by the Forest Department, as shown in
Exh.65, the Court granted total enhanced compensation of ₹ 26,662/-
in respect of the said 139 Adjat trees.
(10) Thus, it appears that the learned Reference Court, after
considering the material placed before it, has rightly granted
compensation. It is pertinent to note that the matter was remanded by
this Court only to determine the valuation of said Adjat trees; however,
considering the existing evidence on record, the learned Reference
PAGE 5 OF 6
-- 6 -- FA 261.2021 (J).odt
Court had granted compensation of ₹ 26,662/- for 139 Adjat trees.
(11) I have gone through the record and proceedings and also,
perused the valuation report prepared by the Forest Department in
respect of the 139 Adjat trees (Exh. 65). I found that the learned
Reference Court, after considering the material/evidence on record,
rightly granted the compensation in respect of 139 Adjat trees. The
learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any perversity or
illegality in the impugned judgment and order to interfere in it. On the
contrary, it appears that the impugned judgment and order is well-
reasoned, just and proper. Hence, I answer the point in negative.
(12) Considering the above discussion, it seems that the
appellant failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the enhance
compensation @ ₹ 1500/- for each Adjat tree instead of what has been
granted. In such an eventuality, the appellant failed to prove his claim
for enhancement of the compensation amount in respect of the Adjat
trees. Thus, it appears that the appeal is devoid of any merit; as such,
it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]
KOLHE
PAGE 6 OF 6
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/06/2025 11:06:54
