Full Judgment Text
1 jfa150of06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2006
Shriram s/o. Namdeo Hoge,
Aged about 65 years, Occ. Cultivator,
R/o. Dahigaon, Tah. Chikhali,
Dist. Buldhana ... APPELLANT
….. VERSUS …..
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Buldhana ... RESPONDENT
======================
Shri.P.B.Patil, Advocate for Appellant
Smt. Shamsi Haidar, AGP for Respondent
======================
CORAM :DR.SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 The judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by
learned Civil Judge Senior Division Buldhana in L.A.C. No.
119 of 1995 is challenged in the appeal by the original
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
2 jfa150of06.odt
claimant on the ground that the amount of compensation
enhanced by the Reference Court is not at all adequate, fair
and just.
2 Facts of the appeal can be stated as under:
The land belonging to appellant bearing land Gut
No.4, out of which 4 hector, situate vilalge Dahigaon, Tal.
Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana was acquired for percolation tank,
by virtue of notification dated 8.7.1993. The LAO had
passed the award on 17.4.1995 granting compensation @
Rs. 28,000/ per hector for the land, Rs. 24,695/ towards
the trees standing in the land.
3 As per the grievance of the appellant, the
compensation awarded by the LAO was quite meager
considering the potentiality of the land and the income
which the appellant was deriving from it. It was also
submitted that the compensation awarded for the fruit trees
also very meager, having regard to the fact that 612 trees of
sweet lemon, Sitafal, Ramfal and mango trees were
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
3 jfa150of06.odt
standing in the land and they were irrigated from the water
in the well. The appellant, therefore, approached the
Reference Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
claiming enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs. 9 lakhs in respect of the fruit bearing trees and Rs.
1,50,000/ per hector towards acquired land.
4 This petition came to be resisted by the respondent
contending interalia that the amount of compensation
fixed by LAO is just, reasonable, fair as he has taken into
consideration all the factors and therefore, no interference
is warranted in the said award.
5 On these respective pleadings of the parties, the
Reference Court framed necessary issues. In support of his
case, appellant examined himself and produced various sale
instances and the receipts of Agriculture Produce Market
Committee. Further he also examined one witness by name
Ramkrushna to prove the registered saledeed at Exh. 63.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
4 jfa150of06.odt
6 On appreciation of this oral and documentary
evidence produced on record by the appellant, the
Reference Court enhanced the market price of the acquired
land @ Rs. 40,000/ per hector. However, as regards, the
compensation awarded towards fruit bearing trees, the
Reference Court was pleased to hold that, there was no
evidence produced on record by the appellant to prove that
the compensation awarded by the LAO is inadequate.
7 While challenging this judgment and order of the
Reference Court, submission of learned counsel for
appellant is that, Reference Court should have kept in mind
the fact that it was a compulsory acquisition and as a result
of such acquisition, appellant is rendered landless and
therefore, the compensation awarded towards acquisition
of the land needs to be enhanced. Similarly, it is submitted
that, even as regards the mango trees considering that there
was 612 fruit bearing trees in the land, the compensation
awarded in lumpsum towards yield price of these trees is
also inadequate and hence interference is required.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
5 jfa150of06.odt
8 I have perused the impugned judgment of the
Reference Court and find that the Reference Court has
considered all the sale instances which were produced on
record by the Appellant and found that as the sale instances
at Exhs. 53, 58 and 59 were executed after notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, they can not be
considered; whereas sale instances at Exh. 54, 55 and 66
were before notification and therefore, the Reference Court
has considered them for determining market price of the
acquired land. Reference Court found that the sale
instances produced at Exhs. 54, 55 & 56 were of the land
situate Dahigaon and then it was noted by the Reference
Court that as regards the sale instances at Exh. 55, it was of
Gut No. 68 of village Dahigaon and for consideration of Rs.
50,000/ on 3.6.1992 whereas sale instance Exh. 56
pertains to 1 hector land of the same village and it was for
consideration of Rs. 35,000/ dated 24.4.1994.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
6 jfa150of06.odt
9 Having regard to those sale instances on which
appellant himself has placed reliance, it can be clearly seen
that the market price of the land at Dahigaon at the
relevant time being 35,000/ to 50,000/ per hector and
after considering the income and sale instances relied upon
by the appellant, the Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation for the acquired land to the tune of Rs.
40,000/ per hector. It thus appears to be just, reasonable
and correct. Hence, no interference is warranted therein.
10 As regards the compensation awarded towards fruit
bearing trees, the Reference Court has considered the
entries in 7/12 extract which showed that there were 600
sweet lemon trees, 100 Sitafal and Ramfal trees. In the
joint measurement report also, it was found that there were
total 612 trees standing in the acquired land. The appellant
has produced on record the APMC receipts at exh. 38 to 50
showing the approximate yield from those trees. He has
also produced the sale receipt of private merchant at exh.
51. According to appellant the the land was fertile, there
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
7 jfa150of06.odt
was also evidence to show the existence of well in the land
and that the land was irrigated by water from the well. As
per the observations made by Reference Court, this
evidence has remained unchallenged. However, the
Reference Court has refused to enhance the compensation,
only on the ground that appellant has not adduced expert
evidence nor produced any valuation report.
11 However, in my considered opinion absence of expert
evidence should not prove fetal to the claimant as it is the
duty of the Court to determine the just, reasonable and fair
amount of compensation. The evidence in this case shows
that these trees were of the age of 5 to 6 years and
appellant was getting substantial income from those trees.
However, compensation which was awarded by the LAO
and confirmed by the Reference Court to these 612 trees is
of only Rs. 36,975/. As rightly submitted by learned
counsel for appellant, the compensation therefore as
awarded by the LAO and confirmed by Reference Court,
comes to Rs. 104 per tree. Needless to state that, this
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
8 jfa150of06.odt
compensation is, on the face of it also, very meager and
therefore, even in the absence of any evidence of the Expert
or Valuer, the Reference Court should have enhanced it so
as to make it reasonable, fair and just. Having regard to
the evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the
compensation for these trees can be enhanced to the tune
of Rs.500 per tree, as there is no specific evidence on record
in respect of income of different trees. To this extent the
interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and
order of the Reference Court.
The appeal is thus allowed partly. The judgment and
order of the Reference Court is modified to the extent of
enhancing compensation for the trees @ Rs. 500 per tree.
The L.A.O. is directed to calculate the compensation
towards 612 trees on the basis of Rs. 500/ per tree and pay
the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant
claimant within three months with all statutory benefits.
The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
JUDGE
belkhede, PA
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::