Bombay High Court
Chief Gen. Manager, W.C.L vs Keshavrao Bholaji Agre & 2 Ors on 4 May, 2016
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
fa1130-1131.07
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2007
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2007
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2007
Chief General Manager,
W.C.L. Jariparka, Nagpur. APPELLANT.
ig VERSUS
1] Keshvrao Bholaji Agre,
aged 78 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist,
R/o Gondegaon Tah.Parshioni,
Distt. Nagpur.
2] The State of Maharashtra
through Collector Nagpur.
3] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Pench Project No. 1
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2007
Chief General Manager,
W.C.L. Jariparka, Nagpur. APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1] Jagannath Thumbaji Gajbhiye,
aged 67 yrs., Occu.Agriculturist,
R/o Gondegaon, Tah.Parshioni,
Distt. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:36 :::
fa1130-1131.07
2
2] The State of Maharashtra
through Collector Nagpur.
3] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Pench Project No. 1
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS.
Shri C. S. Samudra, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the respondent no. 1.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 2 & 3 in F. A.
No. 1130 of 2007.
Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 2 & 3 in F. A.
No. 1131 of 2007.
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : MAY 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Since both these appeals filed under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) take exception to the enhancement of compensation granted with regard to lands situated at village Gondegaon tahsil Parshioni, district Nagpur under the same notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2] In First Appeal No. 1130 of 2007 land admeasuring 0.83 R from field Survey No. 59/2 and 3 H 73 R from field Survey No. 61 was acquired by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the said Act on 25.04.1993. The land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 25.06.1996 and granted compensation for the lands as well as the trees standing therein. Being aggrieved the claimant filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:36 :::fa1130-1131.07 3 The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation in so far as the trees standing on the said lands are concerned.
3] In First Appeal No. 1131 of 2007 land admeasuring 0.93 R from field Survey No. 11 from the same village referred to above was acquired under the same Notification. Even in said appeal the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation only for the trees standing on the acquired land.
Shri C. S. Samudra, the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court with regard to forest trees was without any evidence in that regard. He submitted that the Reference Court referred to its judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 and enhanced the compensation in respect of orange trees.
According to him the Land Acquisition Officer had granted an amount of Rs.43/- each for the forest trees and this was enhanced to Rs. 300/- for each forest tree. He referred to the evidence on record and submitted that there was no justification to grant enhancement in that regard. He however submitted that in so far as the orange, guava and other fruit bearing trees are concerned the amounts granted therein are as per the compensation granted in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 which award has been confirmed in First Appeal No. 786 of 2006. He, therefore, submitted that the compensation granted for the forest trees deserves to be reduced.
Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the claimant in both the appeals supported the impugned judgment. According to him the enhancement by the Reference Court was on the basis of the enhancement ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:36 ::: fa1130-1131.07 4 granted for the fruit bearing trees. He submitted that as the number of trees were not disputed the amount of Rs. 300/- per forest tree was reasonable amount of compensation. He did not dispute the fact that the adjudication in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 has been confirmed in First Appeal No. 786 of 2006.
4] Shri H. R. Dhumale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3 in First Appeal No. 1130 of 2007 and Ms. N. P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3 in First Appeal No. 1131 of 2007.
5] The following point arises for consideration in the appeals:
Whether any case has been made out to interfere with the award of the Reference Court?
6] With assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the record and considered the respective submissions. The record indicates that in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer an amount of Rs. 43/- per forest tree came to be granted. The Reference Court has enhanced this amount to Rs. 300/- per forest tree. The claimants in both the appeals had examined themselves. However, there is no specific evidence led by them to justify enhancement in so far as forest trees are concerned.
Perusal of the impugned judgment indicate that the Reference Court has accepted the adjudication in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 while determining the compensation for the orange trees, guava trees and other fruit bearing trees. There is no discussion whatsoever with regard to ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:36 ::: fa1130-1131.07 5 enhancement for the forest trees. It is not in dispute that in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 no forest trees were standing on the acquired lands.
Thus merely on the basis of the adjudication in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999 it cannot be said that the claimants were straightway entitled for the amount of Rs. 300/- per forest tree.
Considering proportionate enhancement granted by the Reference Court with reference to the fruit bearing trees and the number of forest trees not being in dispute, an amount of Rs. 100/- per forest tree appears to be reasonable compensation for the same. In so far as compensation for the fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same being based on adjudication in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1999, there is no reason to interfere with the said amount of compensation. The point as framed is answered by holding the amount of compensation for the forest trees is required to be reduced to Rs. 100/- per forest tree.
7] In view of aforesaid discussion the following order is passed:
1] The judgment dated 26.06.2007 in Land Acquisition Case No. 111 of 1998 is partly modified. The claimant would be entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per tree for 86 forest trees. Rest of the award passed by the Reference Court stands confirmed. First Appeal No. 1130 of 2007 is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
2] The judgment dated 26.06.2007 in Land Acquisition Case No. 116 of 1998 is partly modified. The claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per tree for 13 forest trees. Rest of the ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:36 ::: fa1130-1131.07 6 award passed by the Reference Court stands confirmed. First Appeal No. 1131 of 2007 is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.
3] The respective parties shall bear their own costs. The claimants would be entitled to receive the amount of compensation in terms of the aforesaid adjudication.
JUDGE svk ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:54:36 :::