Bombay High Court
Deoman S/O Bapu Tapare vs V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer And Ors on 8 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8784
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.368 OF 2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Appellant
through the Executive Engineer, Medium
Project Division, Irrigation Colony, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. (Original NA No.3)
-Versus-
1. Deoman Bapu Tapare, aged about adult,
occupation, agriculturist, r/o Mada Sawangi,
Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur.(Original
Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra through the
Collector, Nagpur (Original NA No.1.)
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Respondents
Irrigation Work, Nagpur (Original NA No.2)
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION NO.49 OF 2023
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.368 OF 2010
Deoman Bapu Tapare, aged about adult, Appellant/
occupation, agriculturist, r/o Mada Sawangi, Cross-
Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. objector
-Versus-
1. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer, Medium
Project Division, Irrigation Colony, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through the
Collector, Nagpur .
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Respondents
Irrigation Work, Nagpur (Original NA No.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Vinay Dahat, counsel for the ori. appellant.
Mr.C.R.Najbile, counsel for respondent No.1 in First
Appeal and for Cross objector in Cross-objection.
Mrs.K.H.Bhondge, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kavita.
2/5
CORAM :MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
Reserved on :- 22/08/2025.
Pronounced on:-08/09/2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1) Heard.
2) The appellant Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation has challenged the judgment and Award dated
23.09.2009 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nagpur in LAC No.74 of 2001 partly allowing the reference
preferred by the respondent no.1-Cross-objector.
3) The appellant has challenged the Award enhancing the
compensation, granting the same, during its determination for life
period of the acquired land and fruit bearing trees without
material evidence for guess work on record and therefore it is the
stand taken by the appellant that the enhancement of
compensation by the impugned judgment and award under guess
work is illegal and not substantial in law.
4) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
stated that the appellant has not received the opportunity to
examine the witness as application for summoning the Taluka
Kavita.
Agricultural Officer, Katol, is rejected. The compensation is
enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per tree. The applicant has claimed the
price of 24 Orange tress @ 12,000/- per tree. The valuation
report suggests the price as Rs.3,327/- per tree. While considering
the evidence of the valuer, the Trial Court has guessed work and
granted Rs. 3,000/- per tree for nine orange trees.
5) The respondent No.1 has filed the cross-objection
stating that though in Award, 24 Orange trees are mentioned by
the Reference Court, the compensation is granted for nine trees
only. The Land Acquisition Officer before conducting the
enquiry of the land bearing survey no.19/2 (71) of Mouja
Madhasawangi has mentioned in panchnama that, there are 24
orange trees standing in the said field of the appellant. The trial
court has erred in not granting the compensation for 12 trees i.e.
Rs. 49,905/- with interest.
6) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
opposed the application stating that only the guess work is done
by the trial Court. The Trial Court has observed that though 24
orange trees are mentioned in survey no.19/2 (71), the Special
Kavita.
Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned only nine orange trees
and therefore, granted Rs.3,000/- per tree for nine orange trees.
7) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
8) The appellant has filed combined land survey application
chart (joint measurement report) on record along with
application, i.e. Civil Application (CAO) No.971 of 2025, which
is the certified copy. In the said report, it is mentioned that there
are 24 orange trees in front of survey No.25, where the name of
the cross-objector is mentioned. It appears from the record that
the oral and documentary evidence supports that there are 24
orange trees in Award and also 24 orange trees are mentioned in
Chart. Though, it is a specific case of claimant about 24 orange
trees, the trial Court on his own considered 9 trees which is
illegal. It is proved by the cross objector that there are 24 orange
trees.
9) From the record it reveals that the trial Court has rightly
considered the compensation for the orange trees after considering
the valuation report of AW-2 Dadan Harbaji Borkar. He has
Kavita.
suggested Rs.3,327 and the compensation is granted as Rs.3000/-
per tree. In such circumstances, there is no need of interference in
the judgment passed by the trial court about compensation of
trees. Hence, the First Appeal is dismissed.
10) As the cross-objector has mentioned that there are 24
orange trees and the compensation is granted only for nine orange
trees. It requires to grant compensation for 12 trees by allowing
the cross objection, hence, the cross-objection is allowed.
Compensation of Rs.49,905/- is granted with interest from the
date of the cross-objection.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2025 14:25:48
Kavita.
