Bombay High Court
The General Manager, Central Railway, ... vs Smt. Mandabai Manoharrrao Mohod And 2 ... on 12 June, 2017
fa438.06.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.438 OF 2006
The General Manager,
Central Railway,
through Deputy Chief Engineer,
Central Railway, Construction,
Ajani, Nagpur. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Smt. Mandabai Manoharrao Mohod,
Aged about 49 years, Agriculturist,
R/o Pala, Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
2] The State of Maharashtra through
the Collector, Amravati.
3] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer-2, Upper Wardha Project,
Amravati. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Zahil Shukhani, Advocate holding for Shri R.G.
Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate holding for Shri A.S.
Kilor, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
th
DATE: 12
JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] This appeal is preferred against the judgment and ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:02:35 ::: fa438.06.J.odt 2 order dated 07.04.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in L.A.C. No.2/2000, thereby directing the payment of additional compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- to the respondent No.1 herein, towards the price of orange trees, besides the compensation already received by him. 2] Brief facts of the appeal are to the effect that are as follows:
In pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land belonging to the respondent No.1 herein, bearing Survey No.73/1 admeasuring 2.63 hectare out of the total area of 5.4 hectare situate at Mouza Pala came to be acquired for construction of Amravati-Narkhed railway line. In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act, respondent No.1 appeared before the L.A.O. and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4100/- per orange tree and Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare towards the land. The Land Acquisition Officer granted the amount of Rs.77,500/- per hectare towards the price of the land Rs.1100/- to Rs.1200/- per orange tree. ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:02:35 ::: fa438.06.J.odt 3
3] Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent No.1 approached the Reference Court and led her evidence and also the evidence of Horticulturist and one Officer from A.P.M.C. On appreciation of their evidence, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation of orange tree by Rs.500/- per tree and thus awarded additional compensation in respect of 896 orange tree to the tune of Rs.4,48,000/- along with the interest and other statutory benefits.
4] While challenging the judgment and order of the Reference Court, the submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the Reference Court has, without there being any evidence on record, enhanced the amount of compensation on the basis of personal opinion given by the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has properly considered all the factors and awarded the just and reasonable amount of compensation, having regard to the age of the orange trees and the yield therefrom. Hence, it was not proper on the part of the Reference Court ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:02:35 ::: fa438.06.J.odt 4 to enhance the said amount by Rs.500/- per tree. 5] Perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court however reveals that the Reference Court has considered the evidence adduced by the witness No.3-Subhash Tayade, who was an Horticulturist and also the evidence of witness No.4-Onkar Raut who was working as Secretary in A.P.M.C. Witness No.3 Horticulturist-Tayade has visited the land belonging to the respondent No.1 and carried out the joint measurement and inspection of the orange trees standing therein. He had given the detailed description of the trees and also stated on the basis of his expertise, as to what can be approximate income from those orange trees. According to him, the valuation of the orange tree standing in the land of the respondent No.1 can be of Rs.4096/- per orange tree, thus the totally Rs.61,44,000/- for 5100 orange tree standing on the relevant time.
6] Witness No.4-Onkar Raut, the Secretary of A.P.M.C. has produced on record relevant evidence of the orange price during the period 1996-1997 and 1997-1998. ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:02:35 ::: fa438.06.J.odt 5 The Reference Court has considered in this respect the evidence of both these witnesses and also the evidence of respondent No.1. Further, the Reference Court has also considered the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer and ultimately came to conclusion that respondent No.1 has produced evidence on record to show that at the relevant time, market rate of orange tree can be Rs.3400/- per tree. The learned Reference Court found that the said rate would be exorbitant and hence, on the basis of material and the documents before him, held the respondent No.1 entitled to additional compensation for 896 orange tree at the rate of 500 per tree.
7] If the entire evidence on record is considered, it cannot be said that the additional compensation of amount as awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.500/- per tree, can be in any way called as exorbitant or against the evidence produced on record. In such a situation, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award, as passed by the Reference Court. The appeal therefore, stands dismissed.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:02:35 ::: fa438.06.J.odt 6 8] At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, requests the Court to permit the respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited in the Court. In view of dismissal of this appeal and no objection given by the learned counsel for appellant, the respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, which is deposited in the Court.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:02:35 :::