IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where land value has been determined with reference to sales statistics, trees will have to be valued separately.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY RASTOGI, J.

Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 36247-36248 of 2016

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay determining the compensation payable to the appellant in reference to the acquisition proceedings which were initiated pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 14th August, 1997.

3. The total land admeasuring 9 hectares and 98 ares situated at Mouza Khandala, Tq. Manora, District Washim came to be acquired by the respondents pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Act published in the Gazette dated 14th August, 1997. In furtherance thereof, declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act which was published in the Government Gazette on 20th August, 1998. The land acquisition officer pursuant thereto passed an award dated 20th August, 1999 in respect of the acquired land and valued the land under field Gat No. 1/1 and 1/2 at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per hectare for dry crop land and under Gat No. 11 at the rate of Rs. 46,600/- per hectare on the basis of revenue assessment with standing trees. On appeal being preferred at the instance of the present appellant under Section 54 of the Act read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the High Court under the impugned judgment, after hearing the parties, granted him the following reliefs:

“(i) The claimant Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare for land admeasuring 7 H 98 Ares, out of the acquired land admeasuring 9 Hectares 98 Ares deducting land admeasuring 2 H on which orange trees were cultivated.

(ii) Claimant is held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per tree for 554 orange trees in Gat No. 1/1 and 1/2.

(iii) Claimant is held entitled to Rs. 91,305/- as compensation for well in Gat No. 1/1 and for well in Gat No. 1/2 to Rs. 26,000/-.

(iv) Claimant is held entitled to compensation for 327 firewood trees at the rate of Rs. 300/- per tree.

(v) Claimant is held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per tree for 400 Sindhi trees.

(vi) Claimant is held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per tree for 30 berry trees.

(vii) The claim in respect of 100 mango trees at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per tree, as has been awarded by the reference Court, is rejected.

(viii) Rest of the statutory entitlements of the claimant including solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, interest under Section 28 of the Act and component under Section 23A of the Act of 1894 be calculated accordingly along with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum till full realization.

(ix) The judgment and order dated 17th of April, 2008 passed by reference Court in LAC No. 170 of 1999 stands modified accordingly.

(x) The reference Court is directed to calculate the compensation payable to the claimant after giving notice to both sides within four months from the date of receipt of writ and certified copy of the judgment.

(xi) If any amount is withdrawn by the claimant, same shall be taken into consideration while making ultimate payment of dues to the claimant.

(xii) The amount deposited by the appellant in Appeal No. 1265 of 2013 if found to be in excess, the same shall be refunded to the appellant.

(xiii) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare awarded by the High Court is not adequate and under the two sale deeds dated 28th December, 1994 and 12th March, 1996, the market price comes to Rs. 50,000/- per hectare in the year 1994 and on the basis of second sale deed of March, 1996, the market price came to Rs. 75,000/- per hectare and the present acquisition being of the year 1997, adequate appreciation has not been made while computing compensation and it deserves further enhancement.

5. L