Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
V.G. Bisht, J.
Executive Engineer Lower Wardha Project Division Wardha - Appellant
Versus
Arvind Sheshrao Wankhede & Others - Respondent
First Appeal No. 24 of 2017
Decided On : 23-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.K. Bhoyar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Rajnish Vyas, Advocate, A.M. Kadukar, AGP.
Point of Law : Acquisition of Land - fact that as the acquired lands were perennially and seasonally irrigated lands, the learned reference Court was of the opinion that the amount of compensation would be double and one and half time of the dry crop land.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 54- Award- Land Acquisition- Determination of compensation - Fruit bearing trees in the acquired lands - No rebuttal evidence was offered from the side of appellant or any evidence was offered to substantiate the correct valuation of the orange trees - Therefore, the said findings qua the orange trees cannot be disturbed. [Para 11,12]
Finding of the Court:
Trees in the acquired lands are concerned, the material on record would show that besides the orange trees, the respondent No.1 herein had other fruit bearing trees, however, the respondent claimed at the rate of Rs.7,870/- per orange tree. In support of his claim, he also examined A.W.2-Subhash Tayade (Exh.47) Horticulturist - the necessary oral and documentary evidence are duly taken into consideration while passing the Award by the learned reference Court, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
Result: First Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
In this Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short ‘the said Act’), the Judgment and Award dated 27th February, 2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 180 of 2006 is under challenge.
2. Land bearing Survey No. 28, admeasuring 1.98 H.R., Survey No. 39, admeasuring 2.43 H.R., Survey No.74, admeasuring 1.52 H.R. and Survey No. 75, admeasuring 1.44 H.R. (having fruit bearing and other trees) were the subject matter of acquisition for submergence under the Lower Wardha Project. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 11th September, 1998.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 30th March, 2002 and fixed the market value of the acquired lands of different rates at the rate of Rs. 62,475/-, Rs. 64,833/-, Rs. 97,250/-, Rs.61,635/- and Rs.61,909/- per hector, respectively, for the above-said acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer offered total compensation of Rs. 1,55,438/-, Rs. 2,05,198/-, Rs.1,40,997/- and Rs.70,211/- respectively for the total areal admeasuring 7.37 H.R. of acquired lands.
4. There were fruit bearing trees in the acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer valued total 86 orange trees in Survey No.28, 470 orange trees, 05 subabhul trees, 01 Bel tree and 06 bamboo trees in Survey No. 74 and 350 orange trees in Survey No.75. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.2,65,283/- for orange and Rs.1,633/-for other trees and Rs.4,050/- for well situated in Survey No.74. The claimant accepted the amount of compensation under protest.
5. The claimant not being satisfied with the Award as passed, filed present proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act. The reference Court by its Judgment and Award dated 27th February, 2015 partly allowed the claim and enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- P.H. for acquired lands of Survey No.28, admeasuring 1.98 H.R., Survey No. 74, admeasuring 1.52 H.R, Survey No. 75, admeasuring 1.44 H.R. and Rs. 1,50,000/- P.H. towards acquired land of Survey No. 30, admeasuring 2.43 H.R., situated at Mouza Mubarakpur, Tq. Arvi, Distt. Wardha. The reference Court further directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.50,55,000/- (after deducting the amount of compensation already paid) towards enhanced compensation of fruit bearing trees, situated in the field bearing No. 28, 74 and 75 along with statutory interest. The Acquiring Body being aggrieved by the enhancement in the amount of compensation has preferred the present Appeal.
6. Mr. Bhoyar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned reference Court failed to see that the compensation granted by the SALO is based on an enquiry having necessary material and the instances on record. The compensation was adequate, just and proper. Similarly, the reference Court granted compensation for 925 non existing orange trees under the joint measurement report. The impugned Judgment and Award being arbitrary, perverse, baseless, un-reasoned and being contrary to the material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, supported the impugned Judgment and Award and took me through the various observations made by the reference Court while enhancing the claim amount. According to learned Counsel, the reasoning being just and proper and based on the material on record need not be interfered with. Appeal being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have carefully perused the record with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties.
9. It appears that respondent No.1 herein had relied upon sale instances (Index-II) of mouza Pachegaon, Borgaon, Bhayyapur and Daulatpur, Tah. Arvi at Exh. 26, 27, 36 and 64 respectively. The learned reference Court carefully went through the oral and documentary evidence including the a
