Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
S.B. SHUKRE, J.
Special Land Acquisition Officer – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo and Others – Respondents
First Appeal No. 371 of 2003 with Cross-Objection No. 76 of 2017
Decided On : 29-08-2017
For the Appellants : R.V. Kalia and M.A. Kadu.
For the Respondent: S. Kashyap.
The need for evidence to support valuations and the correct application of the law in determining the market value of acquired land.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Valuation of Trees - L.A. Act - Section 18
Fact of the Case:
The appeal and cross-objection were filed against the judgment and order passed in a Land Acquisition Case regarding the acquisition of agricultural land for the Pench Project. The dispute primarily revolved around the valuation of orange, bor, and custard apple trees, and the market value of the acquired land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the valuation of the trees by the Reference Court was not properly supported by evidence and adjusted the valuations based on the evidence presented. Additionally, the court held that the market value of the acquired land was not determined in accordance with the applicable law and modified the award accordingly.
Issues: Valuation of orange, bor, and custard apple trees; Market value of the acquired land
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence to support valuations and highlighted the correct application of the law in determining the market value of the acquired land.
Final Decision: The appeal and cross-objection were partly allowed, and the impugned award was modified to adjust the valuations of the trees and the market value of the acquired land.
S.B. SHUKRE, J.
1. This appeal is taken up for final hearing as it is overdue for the same. It is also seen that there is a Cross-objection No. 76/2017, which has been only listed for admission. Since the appeal has already been admitted, Cross-objection is also admitted.
2. Heard finally by consent. This Judgment disposes of appeal as well as Cross-objection. Parties shall now be referred to as per their status in the appeal.
3. The appellants are the acquiring body and the cross-objectors are the respondents and claimants in this appeal. The First Appeal No. 371/2003 and the Cross-Objection No. 76/2017 have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19th April 2001, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 93/1998 by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, thereby partly allowing the reference of the respondents made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “L.A. Act”).
4. The agricultural land bearing Survey No. 13, admeasuring 3.40 hectare, situated at village Kanhalgaon belonging to the respondents was acquired for the purpose of Pench Project (Lower Wena) Nagpur. Section 4 L.A. Act Notification was published on 20th May 1994 while the award under Section 11 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 13.12.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the land at varying rates and also granted compensation for 449 orange trees and other trees. The Reference Court granted compensation for 2.40 hectares of land by determining the market value at the rate Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and granted compensation for the orange and other trees, which were standing on the remaining portion admeasuring 1 hectare of the acquired land. The Reference Court found that there were 467 orange trees, 15 bor trees, 10 custard apple trees and other trees. The Reference Court determined the value of the orange trees to be at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per tree, bor trees to be at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per tree and custard apple tree to be at the rate of Rs. 500/- per tree. There were also other trees the existence of which and valuation of which both were confirmed by the Reference Court in terms of what was done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award passed under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. Both sides were not satisfied with the award so passed by the Reference Court and, therefore, they are before this Court in the present appeal and the cross-objection.
5. I have heard Ms. R.V. Kalia, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant No. 1, Shri M.A. Kadu, learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 and Smt. Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondents-Cross-objectors. I have gone through the record of the case including the impugned award.
6. Now, following points arise for my determination:
(i) Whether the findings recorded by the Reference Court in respect of orange trees, bor trees and custard apple trees and their valuation carried out by the Reference Court are just and proper?
(ii) Whether the compensation granted in terms of market value of the land for 2.40 hectares, instead of 3.40 hectares, out of the total acquired land, is the result of correct appreciation and application of relevant law?
(iii) What order?
7. Learned counsel for both the appellants have submitted that the valuation of the orange trees 467 in number, done by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per tree is not based upon evidence brought on record by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record, that this evidence has gone totally unchallenged and, therefore, no interference with the findings recorded by the Reference Court in this behalf is warranted.
8. While there is no dispute about the existence of total number of orange trees, 467 in number, the dispute is on account of the age of orange trees and valuation of all the trees.
9. I find that so far as the age of the orange trees is c
