Bombay High Court
V.I.D.C. Nagpur Thr. Exe. Engineer, ... vs Nitin Balwanrao Dhume And Others on 8 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10493
1/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2020
1. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Divisional Office, Nagpur.
Through its Executive Engineer, Bembala
Project, Shastrinagar, Date College Road,
Yavatmal, Tahsil and District Yavatmal.
2. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through Executive Engineer,
Bembala Project, Yavatmal, Tahsil and
District Yavatmal. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Nitin Balwantrao Dhume
Age : 50 Years, Occu : Cultivation; R/o
Shroti Hospital Near Tilakwadi, District
Yavatmal, Tahsil and District Yavatmal.
2. Amin Wald Haji Aziz Nagani
Age : 50 Years, Occu : Cultivation and
Business; Tahsil Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.
3. State of Maharashtra, through Collector,
Yavatmal.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bembala
Project, Yavatmal, Tahsil and District
Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
2/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 17 OF 2022
1. Nitin Balwantrao Dhume
Age : 66 Years, Occu : Agriculturist; R/o
Near Shroti Hospital, Tilakwadi, Yavatmal,
Tahsil and District Yavatmal.
2. Amin s/o Haji Aziz Nagani
Age about : 65 Years, Occu : Agriculturist;
R/o Yavatmal, Tahsil and District Yavatmal. ... CROSS OBJECTORS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector,
Yavatmal, Tahsil and District Yavatmal.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
Irrigation Department No.2, Yavatmal,
Tahsil and District Yavatmal.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Divisional Office, Nagpur.
Through its Executive Engineer, Bembla
Project Division, Yavatmal, Tahsil and
District Yavatmal.
4. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal, Tahsil
and District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. A. M. Kukday, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. S. O. Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S. C. Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
3/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 08, 2025.
JUDGMENT
. Heard Mr. A. M. Kukday, learned Counsel for the Appellants,
Mr. S. O. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
Mr. S. C. Joshi, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. In both the proceedings filed by the rival parties before this Court,
the grievance is raised that the learned Reference Court has not properly dealt
with the matter while determining the compensation towards the acquired
land and fruit bearing trees in the agricultural field.
3. In First Appeal No. 364/2020, the prayer is made by the
Appellant/VIDC that compensation awarded is exorbitant, and therefore, the
impugned order be quashed and set aside. Whereas, in Cross Appeal No.
17/2022, it is the submission of the Claimants that the learned Reference
Court has awarded less compensation amount in the matter, and therefore, the
amount be enhanced.
4. In view of rival submissions of both the parties in the matter, I
have gone through the record of the Appeal as well Cross Appeal. Some
4/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
important facts which will be necessary to decide the present Appeal are as
under :
The land in question is field bearing Gat No. 21/1, out of which,
0.81 HR land was acquired for Bembla Dam Project. The Land Acquisition
Officer has awarded Rs.1,49,631/- per hectare for land, Rs.59,028/- for Well
and Rs. 6370/- per fruit bearing trees. The original Claimants, being
dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer,
preferred Reference proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. In the reference proceeding the learned Reference Court, by the
Judgment and Order dated 18/12/2018 awarded Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare for
land, Rs.4697/- per orange tree and Rs.1382/- per lime tree. The said
Judgment and Order passed by the learned Reference Court is under challenge
in the Appeal and Cross Appeal, both by the Appellants as well as Respondents.
5. At the outset the Cross Objectors have pointed out that this Court,
in First Appeal No. 297/2023 arising out of the same Project of village
Thalegaon, Tahsil Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal had occasion to decide the
matter and in the said Judgment this Court has held that the enhancement at
the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare for dry crop land is appropriate for the
land acquired for the Bembla Project. Hence, it is the submission of the Cross
5/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
Objectors that considering the Judgment of this Court they are entitled to pay
compensation at the rate of Rs.4,20,000/- per hectare, in view of admitted fact
that the land in question was an perennial irrigated land.
6. Perusal of the Judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.
297/2023 clarify the fact that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was
issued for acquiring the land was of dated 14/8/2003 and the Award was
passed on 9/6/2005. The land involved in the said Appeal is Gat No.46/2 of
village Thalegaon, Tahsil Babhulgaon District Yavatmal.
In the present Appeal, the land involved is the field survey
No.21/1, admeasuring 2.02 HR which was also acquired by the Notification
dated 14/8/2003 and the date of Award is 9/6/2005.
7. From the perusal of Judgment relied upon by the Cross Objectors
and the Judgment which is under challenge in the present Appeal is arising out
of the same land acquisition proceeding, therefore, the amount which is
determined by this Court, according to me, is applicable in the matter,
particularly for the acquisition of agricultural land. Hence, the dispute
regarding acquisition of the land can be determined on the basis of Judgment
of this Court dated 18/8/2023 passed in First Appeal No.297/2023.
6/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
8. The Appellant/VIDC has raised strong objection on the
determination of value of orange trees and lime trees by the learned Reference
Court. According to the Appellants, valuation done in the matter is not proper
and the same is exorbitant. Hence, according to the Appellants, same needs
reconsideration by this Court.
9. In the present Appeal, I have gone through the Judgment of the
learned Reference Court, and particularly in paragraph No.17 of the Judgment
it is recorded that by relying upon the observation about the calculation of
valuation of trees in the Judgment of this Court i.e. dated 31/1/2017 in First
Appeal Nos. 399/2016 and 400/2016, the valuation of the fruit bearing trees
is determined in the present matter.
10. In view of observations made by the learned Reference Court, I
have gone through the Judgment dated 31/1/2017 in First Appeal No.
399/2016. In the said Judgment, this Court has specifically dealt with the issue
as to how the compensation for the orange trees is to be determined. In
paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of this Judgment, this Court has prescribed as to
how the Court has to determine the valuation of the orange trees. The
paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of this Judgment reproduced as under :
7/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
"10. The Reference Court, while considering this evidence on
record, referred to the Government Resolution dated 27 th December,
1989 in which the life of orange trees was considered to be twenty
to thirty years. Thereafter, on the basis of deposition of the expert
wherein it was stated that age of the trees was about ten years, the
valuation was determined at fifty per cent of the value that was
arrived at by the valuer.
11. From the evidence on record and specially the
deposition of the valuer, it can be seen that in First Appeal No.
399/16, about 208 trees were aged seven years and 342 trees were
aged about ten years. In First Appeal No. 400/16, 300 trees were
aged ten years and 125 trees were aged about six years. As noted
above, the value of the orange trees was determined by considering
the age as ten years. Considering the nature of evidence available on
record as well as the basis on which this calculation was made, the
approach of the Reference Court in determining the total value of
the trees at fifty per cent of the value determined by the expert
appears to be reasonable. The Reference Court, after referring to the
Govt. Resolution dated 27th December, 1989 and after considering
the fact that the orange trees were divided in two groups, found that
compensation at fifty per cent of the value determined for all the
trees would be reasonable. The compensation for the older trees
would be balanced by the compensation that would be granted for
the younger trees. This approach of the Reference Court, therefore,
appears to be reasonable and does not warrant any interference."
11. In the present Appeal, as per evidence which is brought on record,
contention of the Cross Objectors is that there were 350 orange trees of 12
years and 40 lime trees. Acquiring Body failed to establish contrary to this
record. Their only submission is that amount awarded per tree is exorbitant in
8/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
the matter. However, according to me, the learned Reference Court has rightly
relied upon the Judgment of this Court and drawn proper conclusion in respect
of the trees. Same needs no interference in the matter.
12. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the finding of the
learned Reference Court about the number of trees is on the basis of the facts
and evidence led before him. Therefore, in absence of any contrary evidence, I
hold that there were 350 orange trees and 40 lime trees in the agricultural
field of the Cross Objectors. In respect of determination of its value, it is seen
that the learned Reference Court has rightly applied its judicial mind by relying
upon the observations made by this Court in First Appeal No. 399/2016
decided on 31/1/2017. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. The Cross Objector is entitled for Compensation of the land acquired by
the VIDC at the rate of Rs. 4,20,000/- per hectare.
2. The valuation done by the learned Reference Court towards the fruit
bearing trees i.e. Rs.4697/- per orange tree and Rs.1382/- towards per
lime tree is hereby confirmed.
9/9 Judg.fa.364.2020.odt
3. The Appellant/VIDC is directed to deposit the enhanced amount by
deducting the amount which is already deposited before this Court
within a period of three months from the date of this order.
4. The Cross Objectors are permitted to withdraw the entire amount
including the amount which is lying with the Registry of this Court along
with interest accrued thereon, subject to satisfaction of the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court.
13. First Appeal as well as Cross Appeal stand disposed of in above
terms. No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2025 14:55:13
