Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Abhay Ahuja, J.
Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha – Appellant
Versus
Manik Shamrao Chore – Respondent
First Appeal No. 318 of 2017
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Abhijeet Parihar, Advocate, Anoopsingh Parihar, Advocate, C.R.Najbile, Advocate, M.A.Kadu, Advocate
The legal principle of parity between similarly situated persons covered by the same notification was established and applied by the court.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Appeal - Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec. 18 - Survey No.456, 497 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 4(1), Sec. 54, Sec. 18 - The court discussed the valuation of acquired lands, compensation for orange trees, and the legal principle of parity between similarly situated persons covered by the same notification.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed challenging the judgment passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha, in reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands in question were compulsorily acquired for the Lower Wardha Project. The claimant sought enhanced compensation for the acquired lands and orange trees.
Finding of the Court:
The Reference Court held that the acquired lands were perennially irrigated and determined the market value based on the income from fruit-bearing trees. The court also emphasized the legal principle of parity between similarly situated persons covered by the same notification.
Issues: The issues included the valuation of acquired lands, compensation for orange trees, and the legal principle of parity between similarly situated persons covered by the same notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle of parity and relied on previous decisions to determine the compensation for orange trees. It also considered the market value of the acquired lands based on the income from fruit-bearing trees.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment to award enhanced compensation for the 150 orange trees and directed the acquiring body to deposit the amount within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
ABHAY AHUJA,J. - This is an appeal filed under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the said Act '), challenging judgment dtd. 5/2/2015, passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha, in reference under Sec. 18 of the said Act, in LAC No.125/2008.
(2) The lands in question are the lands under Survey No.456 of an area of 3.83 hectares and Survey No.497 of an area of 0.40 hectare of Mouza - Wathoda, Tahsil - Arvi, District - Wardha, which were compulsorily acquired by the State Government for submergence of the Lower Wardha Project, Wardha, vide notification dtd. 3/2/1999 under Sec. 4 (1) of the said Act. There was a well and 350 orange trees in Survey No.456. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide Award dtd. 29/4/2003 has determined the value of land under Survey No.456 @ Rs.59,562.00 per hectare and paid Rs.3,08,845.00 for land, Rs.6,795.00 for five Ber trees and Rs.1,022.00 for forest trees, totalling to Rs.3,16,662.00. The valuation of Survey No.497 was determined @ Rs.62,422.00 per hectare and Rs.24,969.00 was paid for the land and Rs.1,024.00 was paid for the forest trees, totalling to Rs.25,993.00 in addition to statutory benefits.
(3) It is not in dispute that there are 350 orange trees, and a well in Survey No.456 and that the land is perennially irrigated land. The Survey No.456, on which 350 orange trees are present, is also considered to be orchard land.
(4) The case of the claimant is that the said land was the basis of his income source. Being aggrieved that the acquiring body awarded a meager compensation and also failed to consider the real market value of the land, orange trees and the location of the land, he filed a reference before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha, but received the amount of compensation as granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14/6/2005, under protest. The claim made before the reference Court was that the land be valued @ Rs.2,50,000.00 per hectare and each orange tree be valued @ Rs.10,000.00 in addition to Rs.2,00,000.00 for the well. The total enhanced compensation claimed was Rs.42,00,000.00. The acquiring body denied the valuation of the land as claimed by the applicant and submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation of the land after considering the ready reckoner in respect of the price, value, location and other relevant factors. It was also submitted that the claimant had received the amount of compensation and as such, was not entitled to file the reference for enhancement of compensation.
(5) The Reference Court has held that the lands acquired under Survey Nos.456 and 497 are perennially irrigated lands. That claimant is irrigating the said lands through a well situated in Survey No.456. Although, there is no dispute that there are 350 Orange trees in Survey No.456, by virtue of which the Reference Court has held that the land in Survey No.456 is an orchard land, however, it has been observed that only 150 orange trees are fruit bearing trees and the remaining 200 Orange plants were only one year old. The Reference Court went on to rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court on settled principles with respect to valuation and examined the case at hand for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The Reference Court has categorically observed that neither the applicants nor the non-applicants have produced any of the sale instances of land in Village Wathoda. It relied on the sale instances with respect to Mouza Borgaon at Exh.24 and in respect of Mouza Tona at Exh.25 holding that there was no record to show that potentiality of the lands in respect of said two instances was any different than that of dry crop land at Mouza Wathoda in respect of which village the subject acquisition has taken place. It held that these two sale instances with respect to Survey No.16 of Mouza Tona and Survey No.19 of Mouza Borgaon were a good guide for determination of the value of t
