Mr. Nivrutti Muralidhar Dhande And Ors. vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

CNR No : HCBM010255032014

fa186-2023-JF.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.186 OF 2023
1. Nivrutti Muralidhar Dhande
2. Rahibai Trimbak Gund,
since deceased through legal heirs
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
2A. Jijabai Jagannath Gaykhe
2B. Bijabai Shankar Matale
… Appellants
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.10.27
12:11:16 +0530
Vs.
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer ,
Irrigation Department No.1, Nashik
2. Executive Engineer, Nandur
Madhyameshwar Project, Nashik
3. The State of Maharashtra
… Respondents
Mr. Shriram Kulkarni with Mr. Sachin Chavan, Mr.
Pranjal M. Khatavkar, Mr. Gaurav Ugle, Mr. Aryavrat
Dube and Mr. Devesh Bamb i/by Mr. Sachin Chavan for
the Appellants.
Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional G.P. for the Respondents-
State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 13, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 27, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The Appellants have filed this First Appeal for getting more
compensation for their agricultural land bearing Gat No. 456,
1
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
situated at Village Kavnai, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik, which
has been acquired by the Government. According to the
Appellants, the Reference Court has given less compensation,
mainly for the fruit-bearing trees standing on the acquired land.
They claim that the land should be valued at Rs.143 per square
metre without making any deduction. They claim separate
compensation for the fruit-bearing trees according to the fresh
valuation report at Appendix E.
2. During pendency of this Appeal, this Court passed an order
dated 16 October 2024 and directed the Reference Court to give its
findings on two issues. The first issue was whether the judgment
dated 18 February 2017 passed in Land Acquisition Reference
No.108 of 2010 could be applied to the Appellants' land and
whether the market value could be fixed on the basis of the sale
deed of Gat No. 468 without making any deduction. The second
issue was whether the fresh valuation given in Appendix E should
be considered for deciding the compensation of the fruit-bearing
trees. The Reference Court gave its findings on 17 October 2025
and decided both issues in favour of the Appellants. It is now
necessary to consider these findings, the evidence available and
the submissions made by both sides to decide the compensation
payable in this Appeal.
3. The Appellants submit that their land in Gat No. 456 is next
to Gat No. 468 and both lands were acquired for the same
purpose. According to them, both lands are in the same area and
have similar soil, geographical conditions and irrigation facilities.
The revenue records show that crops were grown on both lands.
2
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
Therefore, there is no reason to reduce the rate shown in the sale
deed of Gat No. 468. They point out that the judgment dated 18
February 2017 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.108 of
2010 has become final, as no Appeal has been filed against that
judgment.
4. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants,
submits that after the matter was sent back to the Reference Court,
it accepted that the market value of the land should be decided on
the basis of the sale deed of Gat No. 468 without making any
deduction. He submits that the Reference Court has accepted the
valuation given in Appendix E, which was prepared and certified
by the Taluka Agricultural Officer. According to him, the State
Government cannot now challenge this valuation because it has
not filed cross-objections. He submits that the evidence of the
Appellants and the official documents prove the number, age,
condition and value of the trees. Therefore, the compensation
granted for the trees should be increased.
5. Mr. Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader, opposes
the claim for increasing the compensation for the trees. He submits
that the valuation was prepared in 2023 and 2024, whereas the
relevant date for deciding the market value was much earlier. He
points out that the valuer admitted during cross-examination that
he had not personally inspected the trees. The report does not
mention the circulars on which the calculations were made.
According to him, the evidence is not enough to accept the entire
amount claimed by the Appellants.
3
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
6. Mr. Patil submits that neither the Appellants nor the valuer
has stated when possession of the acquired land was taken.
According to him, if the Appellants continued to earn income from
the fruit-bearing trees until the land was handed over to the
Government, that income should be considered while deciding
compensation. He submits that the findings given by the Reference
Court after the matter was sent back can be challenged even
without filing separate cross-objections. For this purpose, he relies
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Banarsi v. Ram Phal ,
(2003) 9 SCC 606.
7. These submissions require consideration of the findings of
the Reference Court, the contents of Appendix E, the compensation
originally granted, the proper method of valuation and the effect
of not filing cross-objections. The decision must be based on the
evidence relating to the particular land and trees involved in this
Appeal. Compensation cannot be increased only because another
landowner has received a particular rate.
VALUATION OF THE ACQUIRED LAND:
8. The calculation submitted by the Appellants states that the
total area of Gat No. 456 was 4 hectares and 12 ares. It states that
the acquired portion was 1 hectare and 97 ares. However, another
part of the same note mentions the acquired area as 1,08,136.27
square metres. These figures do not match each other. The figure
of 1,08,136.27 square metres cannot be accepted because it is
more than the total area of Gat No. 456 mentioned in the same
note. It does not match the calculation of the original
4
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
compensation. This difference is important because the total
compensation depends upon the area acquired. A higher amount
cannot be granted by taking an area which does not agree with the
other recorded details.
9. The original compensation for the land mentioned in the
Appellants' note is Rs.20,10,523/-. The Reference Court had taken
the rate of Rs.10,20,570/- per hectare. If this rate is applied to
1.97 hectares, the amount comes to Rs.20,10,522.90/-, which
becomes Rs.20,10,523/- after rounding off. This calculation
supports the conclusion that the acquired area was 1.97 hectares,
that is, 19,700 square metres. I proceed on the basis that the
acquired area was 19,700 square metres. This area agrees with the
recorded measurement of 1 hectare and 97 ares and with the
original compensation for the land.
10. The Appellants rely upon the sale deed of Gat No. 468 and
claim compensation at Rs.143 per square metre. After the matter
was sent back, the Reference Court considered the location of Gat
No. 456, its distance from Gat No. 468, the crops grown on both
lands, the availability of water and the type of cultivation. In
paragraph 5 of its findings, the Reference Court recorded that the
earlier Court had relied upon the sale deed of Gat No. 468 for
deciding the market value. However, that Court had treated Gat
No. 468 as irrigated land because the revenue records showed
crops being grown on it. The Reference Court examined the
revenue records of Gat No. 456, which is the land involved in this
Appeal.
5
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
11. Paragraph 7 of the Reference Court's findings records that
the 7/12 extract of Gat No. 456 showed cultivation of sugarcane
and groundnut during the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-
2006. It showed grape cultivation during the year 2005-06. For the
year 2006-2007, the record showed sugarcane over 2 hectares,
groundnut over 43 ares and grapes over the remaining 20 ares.
The Reference Court observed that the existence of the grape
orchard had not been properly considered when the earlier
judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.28 of 2009 was
passed. It accepted the Appellants' objection to the deduction
made from the value worked out on the basis of the sale deed of
Gat No. 468.
12. The availability of water and the existence of a well have
been considered. In paragraph 8, the Reference Court recorded
that the acquired land was proved to be irrigated because crops
were grown on it and a well was present there. It considered the
heavy rainfall in Igatpuri Taluka. These findings are based on the
revenue records and the material considered by the Reference
Court. After the matter was sent back, the State Government did
not produce evidence to disprove these facts. Therefore, the
findings that the land was irrigated and had agricultural conditions
similar to Gat No. 468 deserve to be accepted.
13. The fact that the judgment in Land Acquisition Reference
No.108 of 2010 has become final does not mean that the same
amount must be granted for every other acquired land. The market
value of each land must be decided by considering its own facts.
However, when two lands are next to each other, have been
6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
acquired for the same purpose, have similar agricultural features
and are valued with reference to the same sale deed, the rate
accepted in the earlier reference becomes important evidence. In
the present case, the Reference Court examined whether the two
lands were similar and gave reasons for holding that the earlier
deduction was not proper. There is no sufficient material before
me to take a different view.
14. The Reference Court was right in holding that the market
value should be decided on the basis of the sale deed of Gat No.
468 without making the earlier deduction. The Appellants' claim
for Rs.143 per square metre is accepted. However, the total
compensation must be calculated on the correct area of the
acquired land. At the rate of Rs.143 per square metre, the value of
19,700 square metres comes to Rs.28,17,100/-. The amount of
Rs.1,54,63,486.61/- shown in the Appellants' calculation note
cannot be accepted because it is based on the incorrect and
inconsistent area of 1,08,136.27 square metres. The rate claimed
by the Appellants is accepted, but the total land value claimed by
them is not accepted.
VALUATION OF THE FRUIT-BEARING TREES:
15. The next question is whether the compensation for the fruit-
bearing trees should be increased on the basis of Appendix E. In
the original award, the fruit-bearing trees were valued at
Rs.5,09,189. The Appellants now claim a much higher amount.
Their calculation shows Rs.20,77,920/- for 126 grape plants of the
Thompson variety, Rs.25,59,997/- for 44 mango trees, Rs.96,969/-
7
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
for seven pomegranate trees and Rs.23,54,976/- for a group of 85
trees described in their summary as Jambhul trees. These amounts
have to be examined with reference to the official measurement
and valuation records.
16. This Court directed the Reference Court to examine the fresh
valuation and allowed the Appellants to produce evidence.
Paragraph 2 of the Reference Court's findings records that the
Appellants produced additional evidence at Exhibit 29 and
examined the retired Taluka Agricultural Officer, Sudhakar Jadhav,
at Exhibit 73. The Appellants relied upon Exhibit 82, which is the
corrected joint measurement chart prepared by the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records, Igatpuri; Exhibit 84, which is
Appendix E; and Exhibit 85, which is the schedule of fruit prices
prepared by Nashik A.P.M.C. for the period from 2000-2001 to
2008-2009. Paragraph 3 records that the respondents did not
produce any evidence after the matter was sent back. These
documents have to be considered together while deciding the
value of the trees. Appendix E is titled "Statement of Valuation of
Fruit Trees". It gives details about the type and number of trees,
their general condition, height, girth and spread, their present and
future age, the estimated yearly production of fruit, expected
income, cultivation expenses, net yearly income, the factor applied
to future income and the capitalised value. Thus, the report gives a
separate value after considering the details of the trees. It does not
give the same value to all trees without considering their condition
and ability to produce fruit. The corrected joint measurement chart
at Exhibit 82 supports the number and existence of the trees.
8
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
17. The State objects that the valuation was prepared in 2023-
2024, although the relevant date for deciding market value was
much earlier. This objection has to be considered. Under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, the relevant date for deciding market value
is the date of the applicable notification under Section 4(1).
However, a valuation report cannot be rejected only because it was
prepared later. The important question is whether the report uses
reliable material to determine the condition, age, fruit-producing
capacity and value of the trees for the relevant period.
18. In the present case, the Reference Court relied upon the joint
measurement chart, the valuation statement certified by the Taluka
Agricultural Officer, the evidence of the retired Agricultural Officer
and the schedule of fruit prices for the period from 2000-2001 to
2008-2009. The price schedule covers the relevant period and is
not restricted to the prices prevailing in 2023-2024. The number
and details of the trees are supported by the official measurement
record. The State has not produced another valuation or a
different calculation to show what the trees were worth on the
relevant date. Therefore, the fact that the report was prepared
later is not enough to reject the valuation.
19. The State relies upon the valuer's admission that he had not
personally inspected the trees. This admission is important, but it
has to be considered along with the other evidence. The valuer
explained that he prepared the calculations on the basis of the
number of trees and the available details about their general
condition, height, girth and other features. These details are
recorded in the joint measurement chart and Appendix E. In
9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
paragraph 9 of its findings, the Reference Court considered this
objection and observed that nothing important had come out
during cross-examination to reject the Agricultural Officer's
calculations. The State has not pointed out any particular entry in
Appendix E which is false. It has not produced evidence to show
that any tree was missing, counted wrongly or valued on an
incorrect factual basis.
20. The State objects that the valuation report does not mention
the circulars relied upon by the valuer. This omission is not a
sufficient reason to reject the entire report. Appendix E contains
the actual details and calculations used for valuation. The witness
explained that he had followed the factor used for valuing fruit-
bearing trees. The State had an opportunity to question the
method, produce the relevant Government instructions or submit
another valuation. However, it did not produce such evidence after
the matter was sent back. Not mentioning the number of a circular
is a matter to be considered while checking the reliability of the
report. It does not prove that the calculations are wrong.
21. The evidence relating to the grape trees needs separate
consideration. Paragraph 9 of the Reference Court's findings
records that Exhibit 82, the corrected joint measurement chart
prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, shows
126 grape plants in Gat No. 456. Appendix E, at Exhibit 84,
records that the plants were in good condition and were one year
old. Exhibit 85 contains the market rates of fruit during the
relevant period. The retired Agricultural Officer explained how he
calculated the expected income from the grape plants over a
10
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
period of 15 years. The Reference Court found no sufficient reason
to reject this calculation.
22. The Appellants claim Rs.20,77,920/- for the 126 grape
plants. This amount is based on the expected yield over the period
considered in the official schedule. The State has not produced
another calculation showing what the expected yield, market price,
cultivation expenses or proper valuation factor should have been.
The age and general condition of the plants have been considered.
On the material available, the amount of Rs.20,77,920/- for the
126 grape plants is accepted.
23. The valuation of the mango trees needs to be examined with
reference to Appendix E. Paragraph 10 of the Reference Court's
findings records that Exhibit 82 shows 44 mango trees. The
Appellants' evidence was that mango trees start bearing fruit from
the third year. The Reference Court noted that the existence of
these trees was not disputed. Their age, condition, and ability to
bear fruit must be considered while deciding their value.
24. Appendix E records the condition, height, girth, and spread
of the trees. It gives details showing that some trees were small
and had not reached the same stage of growth as the other trees.
The Reference Court noted that eight small mango trees had to be
valued according to their actual stage of growth. They cannot be
treated as if they were producing fruit at the same rate as fully
grown trees. However, the official schedule considers the details of
individual trees, and the amount accepted here is the total amount
claimed on the basis of that schedule. No amount for the expected
11
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
fruit yield of the eight small mango trees is being added separately.
25. The Appellants claim Rs.25,59,997/- for the 44 mango trees.
The Reference Court examined the valuation report and found that
the respondents had not produced convincing material to disprove
the calculations. The State has not shown that the number of
mango trees recorded in Exhibit 82 is wrong. It has not provided
another valuation based on their actual age, condition or expected
yield. Considering the official valuation schedule, the amount of
Rs.25,59,997/- is accepted for the 44 mango trees. However,
young trees must be valued according to their actual condition.
They cannot be treated as if all the trees were producing fruit at
the same rate.
26. The same method applies to the pomegranate trees. Exhibit
82 records seven pomegranate trees, and the State has not
disproved their existence. The Reference Court noted that one
pomegranate tree was only one year old. Its ability to produce fruit
cannot be treated as equal to that of a fully grown tree. Appendix
E contains details of the individual trees, and their value has to be
decided on that basis. The amount of Rs.96,969/- claimed for the
seven pomegranate trees is accepted as the amount worked out
under the schedule. No additional income is added for the young
pomegranate tree.
27. There is a difference in the description of the remaining
group of 85 trees. The Appellants' summary describes these trees
as Jambhul trees and claims Rs.23,54,976/-. However, the
corrected joint measurement chart and the findings of the
12
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
Reference Court, particularly paragraph 10, describe the group of
85 trees as guava trees. Appendix E contains a valuation of guava
trees. The official measurement record supports the existence of 85
guava trees. The material considered by the Reference Court does
not establish a separate group of 85 Jambhul trees. Compensation
cannot be granted for a type of tree whose existence is not proved
by the evidence. I treat the amount of Rs.23,54,976/- as
compensation for the 85 guava trees identified in the official
records. No separate compensation is granted for Jambhul trees.
28. In paragraph 10 of its findings, the Reference Court
examined the valuation of the remaining fruit trees. It found that
Exhibit 82 records 44 mango trees, 85 guava trees and seven
pomegranate trees. The respondents did not produce convincing
evidence to disprove these details. Paragraph 11 concludes that
Appendix E should be considered while deciding compensation for
the fruit-bearing trees. The State has not produced material
showing that the valuation of the 85 guava trees is wrong.
Therefore, the amount of Rs.23,54,976/- is accepted for this group
of trees.
29. The State's objections regarding the date of valuation, the
absence of personal inspection and the failure to mention the
circulars have been considered. These objections cannot be ignored
only because the State did not produce evidence after the matter
was sent back. The Appellants must still prove their claim for
increased compensation. In the present case, they have produced
the official joint measurement chart, the certified valuation
schedule, the fruit-price details and the evidence explaining the
13
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
calculations. The State has not established any specific error in the
figures which have been accepted. Therefore, the findings of the
Reference Court regarding the valuation of the trees deserve to be
maintained.
THE LEGAL METHOD OF VALUING LAND AND FRUIT-BEARING
TREES:
30. One more legal question arises in this matter. The market
value of the land is being decided on the basis of the sale deed of
Gat No. 468, while the fruit-bearing trees are being valued on the
basis of their expected income. It is necessary to examine whether
both amounts can be granted together. Even when the Reference
Court has accepted a valuation, this Court must ensure that the
correct legal principles have been followed.
31. In Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala , (1991)
4 SCC 8, paragraph 6, the Supreme Court explained the method of
valuing land and fruit-bearing trees in the following words:
“It is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of
the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the
lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both
would not constitute one unit; but separate units; it would
be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the court either to
assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value
and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable
and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual
income of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income
multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be
the proper and fair method to determine the market value
but not both.”
14
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
32. The principle explained by the Supreme Court is that the
same property cannot be valued twice in such a way that the
owner receives compensation twice for the same value. If the
market value of the entire property has been decided by including
the capitalised income of the fruit-bearing trees, that same income
cannot again be calculated and added to the value of the land.
33. However, this principle must be applied after looking at the
nature of the acquired property and the method used to decide its
value. In Navanath & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , (2009) 14 SCC
480, paragraphs 32 to 34, the Supreme Court held that
agricultural land and an orchard may require different methods of
valuation. The Court held that the market value of land cannot be
decided by applying the sale-instance method and the
capitalisation method to the same property in a way which counts
the same value twice. At the same time, the existence of fruit-
bearing trees on agricultural land does not prevent their separate
valuation. The real question is whether the same property is being
valued twice, first as agricultural land and then again as an
orchard or forest.
34. In the present case, the revenue records do not describe the
entire acquired land as one orchard valued as a single property.
They show cultivation of sugarcane, groundnut and grapes on
different portions of the land. The records identify mango, guava
and pomegranate trees, apart from the grape plants. The land was
treated as irrigated agricultural land. Its market value was decided
with reference to the sale deed of neighbouring Gat No. 468. On
the other hand, Appendix E gives a separate value of the individual
15
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
fruit-bearing trees on the basis of their number, age, condition and
expected yield. There is no material before this Court to show that
the sale price of Gat No. 468 was decided by calculating the future
income of the trees and that the same income has again been
included in the present valuation of the trees. The State has not
produced evidence to show that the land value accepted by the
Reference Court represents the value of the entire orchard as one
property, decided by using the same capitalisation method. The
land and the trees have been valued under separate heads on the
basis of different material. The crop records show that the land
was used for agricultural purposes apart from having fruit-bearing
trees.
35. I find that the principle stated in Koyappathodi is not
violated merely because the land and its fruit-bearing trees have
been valued in the present case. The decision in Navanath requires
the Court to examine the actual nature of the property and the
method used to value it. On the evidence available, valuing the
agricultural land by comparing it with a sale transaction and
valuing the fruit-bearing trees does not amount to valuing the
same property twice. Therefore, separate compensation for the
trees can be granted.
36. Appendix E uses capitalisation of income over the period
mentioned in the schedule. The State has not produced another
valuation or evidence to show that the factor used by the
Agricultural Officer is wrong for these trees. The judgment in
Koyappathodi recognises that an appropriate capitalisation method
can be used where reliable evidence of yearly income is available.
16
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
The proper multiplier depends upon the facts of each case.
However, there is no sufficient evidence before this Court to
replace the factor used in the official valuation schedule with
another factor only because the State has raised a general
objection.
EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS AND THE CLAIM
FOR DEDUCTION:
37. The next submission is that the State Government cannot
challenge the valuation accepted by the Reference Court because it
has not filed cross-objections. The Appellants rely upon the fact
that the findings after the matter was sent back were recorded as
directed by this Court and that the State did not file cross-
objections against those findings.
38. In Banarsi , the Supreme Court explained the effect of Order
XLI Rules 22 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
Court observed:
“A respondent may defend himself without filing any cross
objection to the extent to which decree is in his favour;
however, if he proposes to attack any part of the decree he
must take cross objection.”
39. The Supreme Court held that the wide power under Order
XLI Rule 33 does not give a party an unlimited right to reopen a
part of the decree which has become final merely because the
Appellate Court disagrees with the earlier view.
40. The legal position is not that a respondent cannot raise any
objection whenever cross-objections have not been filed. A
17
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
respondent can oppose the claim for increased compensation and
point out defects in the evidence relied upon by the Appellants.
However, where the law requires an appeal or cross-objections to
challenge a part of the decree, the respondent cannot ask the
Court to change that part in its own favour without taking the
required steps. In the present case, the State is entitled to oppose
the claim for enhancement, and its objections have been
considered on their merits. However, the absence of cross-
objections does not allow this Court to reduce the compensation
granted to the Appellants.
41. The State seeks a deduction on the ground that the
Appellants may have continued to earn income from the trees until
possession of the land was taken. This argument is based on a
possible benefit received by the Appellants. However, the State has
not established the actual date on which possession was taken or
the amount of income received by the Appellants during that
period. It has not produced evidence to show which trees
continued to bear fruit, how much produce the Appellants received
or what amount should be deducted from the compensation on
this ground.
42. A deduction from compensation cannot be made only
because a possible benefit is suggested. Compensation must be
decided on the basis of evidence and the applicable legal
principles. The Reference Court has found that the number and
condition of the trees are supported by official documents. The
State has not produced material to calculate the benefit which it
claims the Appellants received. Therefore, no deduction can be
18
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
made on this ground. For the same reason, the objection that the
valuer did not personally inspect the land is not enough to reject
the entire report. The valuation is supported by the joint
measurement chart, the certified statement in Appendix E and the
fruit-price schedule for the relevant period. The valuer's evidence
explains how the valuation was prepared. The State has not
established any specific error in the calculations during cross-
examination. The Reference Court was justified in accepting the
fresh valuation, subject to the findings regarding the actual
number and condition of the trees.
FINAL CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION:
43. After considering the evidence as a whole, I find that the
Appellants have proved their claim for increased compensation for
the acquired land and the fruit-bearing trees. The market value of
the land is accepted at Rs.143 per square metre, without any
deduction. The correct acquired area is 19,700 square metres.
Therefore, the compensation for the land comes to Rs.28,17,100/-.
The compensation for the 126 grape trees is fixed at
Rs.20,77,920/-. The compensation for the 44 mango trees is fixed
at Rs.25,59,997/-. The compensation for the seven pomegranate
trees is fixed at Rs.96,969/-. The compensation for the group of 85
guava trees, as identified in the official measurement and
valuation records, is fixed at Rs.23,54,976/-. These amounts are
based on the valuation placed before the Reference Court and
accepted after the matter was sent back. The amount for the 85
trees shall not be treated as compensation for a separate group of
Jambhul trees.
19
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
44. The total compensation for the fruit-bearing trees comes to
Rs.70,89,862/-. When this amount is added to the land
compensation of Rs.28,17,100/-, the total principal compensation
payable for the acquired land and the specified trees comes to
Rs.99,06,962/-. The calculation is as follows: (i) Land
compensation: Rs.28,17,100/-; (ii) Compensation for fruit-bearing
trees: Rs.70,89,862/-; (iii) Total principal compensation:
Rs.99,06,962/-.
45. The original compensation for the land was Rs.20,10,523/-,
and the original compensation for the trees was Rs.5,09,189/-.
Therefore, the total principal compensation under the earlier
award was Rs.25,19,712/-. When this amount is compared with
the compensation now decided, the increased principal amount
comes to Rs.73,87,250/-. This is the additional principal amount
payable before adding statutory benefits and interest, after giving
credit for the amounts paid to the Appellants.
46. The Appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits and
interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the extent
applicable. These include the additional amount under Section
23(1A), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section
28. The calculation must take into account the relevant dates
recorded in the acquisition proceedings and give credit for the
amounts paid or deposited. The actual date of possession and the
details of earlier payments have not been established in the
material considered here. Therefore, the final amount payable,
including statutory benefits and interest, must be calculated from
the official acquisition and payment records.
20
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
47. For the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by the
Reference Court on 17 October 2025 on both issues are accepted,
subject to correction of the acquired area and the description of
the group of 85 trees. The Appellants' claim for valuation of the
land at Rs.143 per square metre is accepted. Their claim for fresh
valuation of the fruit-bearing trees is accepted to the extent stated
above. The State's objections to the valuation report and its request
for deductions are rejected because sufficient supporting evidence
has not been produced.
48. The First Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:
(i) The compensation for the acquired land bearing Gat
No. 456 shall be calculated at Rs.143 per square metre for
19,700 square metres, amounting to Rs.28,17,100/-;
(ii) The compensation for the fruit-bearing trees shall be
Rs.70,89,862/-. This amount consists of Rs.20,77,920/- for
126 grape plants, Rs.25,59,997/- for 44 mango trees,
Rs.96,969 for seven pomegranate trees and Rs.23,54,976/-
for the 85 guava trees established by the official
measurement and valuation records;
(iii) The total principal compensation for the land and trees
is fixed at Rs.99,06,962/-. After giving credit for the
principal compensation of Rs.25,19,712/- awarded, the
increased principal amount payable is Rs.73,87,250/-;
(iv) The Appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits
and interest as stated in paragraph 48 above, to the extent
applicable under law. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
21
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19

fa186-2023-JF.doc
shall prepare a detailed calculation statement, give credit for
all amounts paid or deposited and deposit the balance
amount in accordance with law within four weeks from
receipt of an authenticated copy of this judgment;
(v) The award of the Reference Court shall stand modified
to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
22
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 12:22:19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)