SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Through its Executive Engineer - Appellant
Versus 
Dnyaneshwar Sadashiv Nagpure - Respondent
First Appeal No. 285 of 2022, Cross Objection No. 19 of 2023
Decided On : 21-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Ashwini Athalye, Advocate for Appellant in First Appeal No. 285/2022
and for Respondent No.1 in Cross-Objection No. 19/2023.
Ms. Rajkumari Rai, Advocate a/w Mr. Sahil Kashyap, Advocate for Respondent
No.1 in First Appeal No. 285/2022 and for Cross-Objector/Appellant in Cross
Objection No. 19/2023.
Mr. M. A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No.2/State in First Appeal No.285/2022
and Cross Objection No. 19/2023.

Compensation for land and trees cannot be awarded separately when determined by income capitalization method, as it includes both values.

Headnote:

(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 11, and 18 - Acquisition of land for Wadgaon Dam - Compensation awarded for land and trees - Cross-objector sought enhancement for orange trees only, limiting claims at final hearing - Valuation report of Valuer not accepted due to lack of evidence and clarity - Compensation for orange trees determined at Rs.2700/- per tree based on income capitalization method, totaling Rs.10,12,500/- for 1.22 HR land - Separate compensation for land not awarded as it is included in the income capitalization method. (Paras 1-80)

(B) Principle of Parity - Judicially recognized in land acquisition cases - Compensation for similar lands should be consistent unless justified otherwise. (Paras 22-24)

(C) Income Capitalization Method - Compensation for land and trees cannot be awarded separately when determined by this method. (Paras 52-56)

(D) Evidence of Valuer - Must be based on relevant factual data and cannot be mechanically accepted. (Paras 32-34) (E) Cross-objector entitled to Rs.5,11,875/- for 2.73 HR land, determined at Rs.1,87,500/- per hectare. (Paras 79-80)

JUDGMENT :

1. The land of the Cross-objector bearing Gat No. 38 admeasuring 3.95 HR located at village Ridhora, Tahsil and District Nagpur came to be acquired for Wadgaon Dam under Lower Vena Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was published in the Official Gazette on 27/4/1995, which is last date of publication. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed Award dated 30/4/1997 under Section 11 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.1,78,186/- for the land, Rs.47,985/- for pipe-line, Rs.6039/- for a structure standing on the land and Rs. 4,86,316/- for the trees. It will be pertinent to mention here that there were 375 orange trees in a portion admeasuring 1.22 HR land acquired from the Cross-objector.

2. As stated above, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award dated30/4/1997. The Cross-objector made an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, since he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, reference was made to the Civil Court, which came to be registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 154 of 2005.

3. The Cross-objector/land owner did not raise any dispute with respect to rate of the land. The grievance was with respect to valuation of the trees, principally, orange trees. It may be stated that the perusal of paragraph 12 of the reference application, wherein particulars of the claim are mentioned indicates that the Cross-objector had sought enhancement of compensation only for 375 orange trees, 3 Ajan trees and 15 Teak trees and in addition, sought compensation for the electric motor-pump and pipe-line. However, thereafter at the stage of final hearing, the Cross-objector filed a pursis vide Exhibit-29 restricting the claim for enhancement in compensation for orange trees only.

4. The Appellant/Acquiring Body filed its written statement and justified the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Apart from that, issues were raised with respect to limitation and acceptance of amount of compensation without protest.

5. Based on rival pleadings, the learned Reference Court framed issues in the matter. The Cross-objector examined himself and one Dadan Harbaji Borkar, Valuer, who has given valuation of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. The Appellant did not lead any evidence in the matter.

6. The Cross-objector has reiterated the facts stated in the reference application in his evidence. However, since the dispute pertains to valuation of orange trees, the evidence of Valuer is significant. Mr. Dadan Borkar, Valuer has stated in the Valuation Report dated 20/10/1995 (Exhibit-14) that he had visited the agricultural land of the Appellant on 15/10/1995. He states that when he had visited the field, orange trees were bearing fruits. He has stated that provision was made for irrigation by means of 3.5 HP electric motor-pump for drawing water from Vena river and a pipe-line of 300 feet was also laid. The orange trees are valued at Rs.5481.22/- per tree. The price of oranges is taken at Rs.5.75/- per kilogram and average yield of each orange tree is taken at 125 kilograms per year. He has stated that the age of orange trees was around seven years. The height and girth of the trunk of tree is recorded as 4.5 meters and 0.5 meters respectively. The Valuer has estimated gross income of each tree at Rs.718.25/- per annum and has thereafter made deduction of Rs. 25/- per tree for the cost of cultivation and further deduction of Rs.71.90/- towards profit of cultivator. Accordingly, he has derived net income from each tree at Rs.621.85/-. Considering the future age of trees as 20 years, he has applied multiple of 8.804 towards ‘Years Purchase’ and thus, arrived at capitalized value of each orange tree at Rs.5474.98/-. The fuel value of tree is arrived at Rs.6.23/-, and accordingly, net compensation payable for each tree is determined at Rs. 5481.22/-.

7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top