THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PATBANDHARE VIBHAG, AKOLA vs. SHRI NANDLAL S/O KANHAIYYALAL AGRAWAL

2026:BHC-NAG:2453-DB
FA506.21.odt 1/10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 506/2021
1) The Executive Engineer,
Patbandhare Vibhag, Akola,
Tq. & Dist.- Akola.
(Ori. N. A. No.2 On RA)
... APPELLANT
...VERSUS…
1) Shri Nandlal S/o Kanhaiyyalal Agrawal,
Aged about: Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,
(Ori. Claimant No. 1 on RA)
2) Smt. Ramabai W/o Nandlal Agrawal,
Aged about: Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,
(Ori. Claimant No. 2 on RA)
Both R/o Shivpur,
Tq. Akot, Dist.- Akola
3) The State of Maharashtra,
Represented by Collector, Akola,
Through Land Acquisition Officer,
K.P.M.P. Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola.
(Ori N. A. No. 1 On RA)
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. T. M. Zaheer, Advocate for the appellant
Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, AGP for respondent/State
Mr. H. D. Dangre with Mr. R. V. Malviya, Advocate for the respondent
nos. 1 & 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

FA506.21.odt 2/10

nd
RESERVED ON : 22 JANUARY, 2026.
TH
PRONOUNCED ON : 11 FEBRUARY , 2026.
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akot, in Land Acquisition Case No. 01
of 2015, (Old Land Acquisition Case No. 14 of 2015), decided on
28.07.2020.
3. We have heard Mr. T. M. Zaheer, learned counsel for the
appellant, Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, AGP for the Respondent No. 3 and
Mr. H. D. Dangre with Mr. R. V. Malviya, learned counsel for the
respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
4. The facts, which are more or less undisputed, are that the
respondents nos. 1 and 2 owned and possessed agricultural land
bearing Gat No. 255, admeasuring 7 hectares 27 R., out of 3.59 HR
lands situated at village Shivpur, Taluka Akot, district, Akola, which
was acquired for construction of Shivpur tank.

FA506.21.odt 3/10

5. For the said purpose Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 31.05.2007 and the award
was declared on 20.08.2008. The respondent No. 3, i.e. the Land
Acquisition Officer, granted compensation to the claimants, i.e. the
respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for total acquired 3.59 HR land at the rate
of Rs. 62,300/- per hectare.
6. Being aggrieved by the said award, the said respondents filed
a reference application before the Collector at Yavatmal and thereby
claimed enhanced compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 4 lakhs
per hectare.
7. The reference Court allowed the reference on 28.07.2020 and
directed to pay enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 250,000/-
per hectare for the acquired 3.59 hectares of land and for Teak
wood trees which were 1,900 in number at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-
per tree and other trees as well. It is this judgment which is
challenged in the present appeal on the grounds as stated in the
appeal.

FA506.21.odt 4/10

8. While assailing the judgment passed by the reference Court,
the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said court did
not appreciate the fact that the reference was filed at a verty
belated stage and therefore, the limitation issue was overlooked by
the said Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the reference Court has not appreciated their
evidence in proper perspective and has not considered the various
admissions in the cross-examination of the witnesses. It is his
submission that the reference Court erred in considering the
existing geographical situation of the land and has wrongly come to
a conclusion by giving higher value of the trees which are not in
existence. He, therefore, prays that the judgment is liable to be set
aside in appellate jurisdiction.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. H. D. Dangre, appearing
for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the original claimants,
strenuously submits that there was enough material on record to
show that in fact the trees of Teak existed and therefore there is no
error in granting compensation as has been granted by the reference
Court. By taking us through the various revenue records at Exhibits
23 to 30, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1

FA506.21.odt 5/10

and 2 submits that consistently from the year 1995-96, there is a
mention of Teak wood trees in the revenue extract. He, therefore,
submits that the said fact is clearly an indication that much before
the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, there were trees which existed on the land. He, however, fairly
concedes that the earlier revenue records only mentions about the
area under cultivation of trees and for the first time, it is mentioned
in the revenue record for the year 2007-2008 that 1900 trees
existed on the said cultivated land. He, further, submits that the
evidence led by the appellant was sketchy and therefore the
reference Court was right in awarding compensation. He, therefore,
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. After hearing the parties, we had closed the matter for
judgment on 22.01.2026. However, on 02.02.2026, the matter was
mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that
he wants to file certain documents which was in the nature of
literature regarding the number of Teak trees which can be number
of trees, that can be planted on 1 hectare of land. At his behest, the
said matter was taken on board on 02.02.2026.

FA506.21.odt 6/10

11. The learned counsel for the appellant filed a pursis along
with extract of book namely “Krushisanvadini” published by Dr.
Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola, which is a reputed
Agricultural University in Vidarbha. He also filed extract of book
namely “101 Profitable Agribusiness Ideas In India” which is
available on the internet. The said documents are taken on record.
Furthermore, as can be seen from the record itself that a consistent
stand has been taken by the respondents that is original claimants
that there were 1900 trees under cultivation in area admeasuring
about 2 hectares of land. The documents which are in the nature of
a literature filed along with the pursis as mentioned above are in
support of the said stand taken by the original claimants before the
reference Court and the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the
claimant in our view is only filing material in support of the said
stand.
12. In view of these facts, following points arise for our
determination and the findings thereon are recorded for reasons
given:-

FA506.21.odt 7/10

REASONS
13. AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 3:-
Since all these points are interlinked, they are being decided
together. The claimants in support of their claim had led evidence
and have been cross-examined by the acquiring body. P.W.1 is the
original claimant that is respondent no. 1 herein (Shri Nandlal S/o
Kanhaiyyalal Agrawal). In his examination-in-chief itself, the said
witness has taken a specific stand that in the revenue record that is
7/12 extract, there was an entry in respect of Teak Wood trees and
the possession of the land in question was taken by the authorities
before Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1984, was issued. He further states that he has made a complaint to
the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the personnel of the

FA506.21.odt 8/10

Acquiring Body destroying the Teak Wood trees and starting the
work of dam prior to Section 4 Notification. The cross-examination
of this witness is quite sketchy and nothing incriminating to the
interest of the claimant has come on record.
14. If the evidence of the claimants, that is the respondent nos. 1
and 2 are perused, there is a specific averment in the said affidavit
that in field Gat No. 255, there were 1900 Sagwan Trees, 19
Orange trees, 12 Bor trees, 2 Sitafal trees and 8 Moha’s trees. The
said fact has been reiterated in the said claim affidavit and the age
of the said trees, height of the said trees and the diameter of the
said trees is also stated in the affidavit. If the cross examination of
the claimant, i.e. Nandlal Agrawal, is perused, there is no
suggestion in the cross-examination which disputes the said facts. In
fact, the cross-examination states that the trees and the fixtures
standing in the field are also shown in 7/12 extracts which
according to us supports the case of the claimant. Only a bald
suggestion which is also denied regarding the entry of Teak wood
trees in collusion with the Talathi is given in the cross-examination.

FA506.21.odt 9/10

15. The claimants in support of their claim have also examined
one Afzal Khan, son of Afsar Khan who happens to be owner of the
mill engaged in cutting of wood. In his said examination-in-chief
filed on affidavit he has also stated that there are 1900 Teak wood
trees standing on the said piece of land being acquired by the
appellant. Even in his cross-examination there is nothing suggested
which would prejudice the claim of the claimants. The suggestion
regarding valuation of each tree has been fortified in the cross-
examination by the witness looking at his experience in the said
business. Thus, no incriminating material has been brought on
record by the Acquiring Body which demolishes the case of the
claimant.
16. The reference Court while granting compensation has
properly appreciated the evidence on record along with the
supporting documentary material in paras 17 and 18 of the
judgment assailed, the reference Court has clearly observed that
there were 1900 Teak wood trees and there is nothing in the cross-
examination in rebuttal on behalf of the Acquiring Body. The
reference Court has further recorded a finding that the
compensation of Rs 62,300/- per acre awarded by the Land

FA506.21.odt 10/10

Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate and therefore went on to
enhance the compensation by taking into consideration the material
placed on record as stated supra.
17. On careful consideration of the entire material on record, we
do not find any error in the judgment of the reference Court. The
appeal therefore is without any merit and is accordingly rejected.
We therefore, pass the following order :-
ORDER
i) Appeal is rejected.
iii) Judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Akot, in Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2015, (Old Land
Acquisition Case No. 14 of 2015), decided on 28.07.2020 is hereby
confirmed.
iii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) ( SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. )
Shubham