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) 912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Sharad S/o Manikrao Burghate - Appellant 
Versus
The Executive Engineer [V.I.D.C.] - Respondent
Cross Objection No. 27 of 2016,  First Appeal No.746 of 2015
Decided On : 21-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. K. S. Narwade, Advocate for Cross-Objector/Respondent No.1.
Ms. A. S. Athalye, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Appellant.
Mr. M. A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3/State

Compensation for land and trees in land acquisition cases must be determined by income capitalization method, which includes both, and separate compensation is not permissible.

Headnote:

(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 and Section 18 - Compensation for acquired land - Cross objection filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court - The Supreme Court directed reconsideration of valuation report and nature of land - Compensation for irrigated and dry crop land determined based on market value and income capitalization method - Separate compensation for trees and land not permissible when determined by income capitalization method. (Paras 3, 15, 76)

(B) Valuation of Trees - Expert testimony and valuation report - The court emphasized the necessity of factual verification of yield and expenses in determining the value of fruit-bearing trees - The valuation report was found unreliable due to lack of evidence and incorrect assumptions regarding yield and age of trees. (Paras 28, 40, 76)

Facts of the case:
The land owner sought enhancement of compensation for agricultural land acquired for an irrigation project, disputing the classification of land and valuation of fruit-bearing trees. The Reference Court had awarded compensation based on the nature of the land and the number of trees. (Paras 5, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Reference Court's determination of compensation for land bearing survey no.221 and confirmed the classification of survey no.336 as dry crop land, rejecting the claim for separate compensation for land and trees. (Paras 76, 78)

Issues: The main issues included the classification of land as irrigated or dry crop land, the appropriate market value of the land, and whether separate compensation should be awarded for trees in addition to land. (Paras 19, 50)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when compensation is determined by income capitalization method, it includes compensation for both land and trees, and separate compensation is not warranted. The valuation report was deemed unreliable due to lack of factual basis. (Paras 56, 76)

Result: Cross objection dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Cross Objection is filed by the land owner seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation granted by the learned Reference Court vide judgment and award dated03.04.2013 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.281/2006.

2. The land owner is referred in the judgment as “cross objector” and acquiring body/VIDC is referred as “appellant” since the appeal under Section 54 was preferred by it in which the land owner has filed cross objection.

3. Initially, the acquiring body/Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (V.I.D.C.) filed appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 03.04.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No.281/2006 whereby the land acquisition reference initiated at the behest of the respondent no.1 land owner was partly allowed thereby enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer in lieu of acquisition of land of the respondent no.1. The original applicant/land owner has filed Cross-Objection No.27/2016 seeking further enhancement of compensation determined by the learned Reference Court. The appeal and cross objection were decided vide judgment and order dated 30.03.2023. The appeal and cross objection were dismissed holding that determination of compensation by the learned Reference Court was just and proper. The said judgment and order came to be assailed by the cross objector land owner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal No.12972/2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment dated 30.03.2023 and was further pleased to direct this Court to reconsider the valuation report (Exhibit C-2) relied upon by the cross objector for valuation of trees and the issue with respect to land bearing survey no.336 being an irrigated land or dry crop land. It will be pertinent to mention here that the other land bearing survey no.221 is considered to be an irrigated land by the land acquisition officer as also by the learned Reference Court. Both the parties agree that survey no.221 is an irrigated land. The direction to reconsider the nature of land is thus for land bearing survey no.336 on which the parties are at a contention.

4. The appellant/ acquiring body has not challenged the judgment dated 30.03.2023, dismissing the first appeal no. 746/2015 preferred by it. In view of the above, only the cross objection is taken up for adjudication afresh in terms of directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In brief the facts of the case are as under:

5. Agricultural land of the cross objector bearing survey no.221 admeasuring 3.36 HR and survey no.336 admeasuring 1.38 HR, situated at village Deurwada, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha came to be acquired for irrigation project of the appellant V.I.D.C. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘L.A. Act’) was published in official gazette on 08.04.1999. The notice was published in the Gram Panchayat Office on 28.07.1999, which is the last date of publication of notice and as such this is the relevant date of Section 4 notification for the purpose of determination of compensation. The land acquisition officer passed award dated 27.03.2003 under Section 11 of the L.A. Act awarding compensation for land bearing survey no.336 at the rate of Rs.33,144/- per hectare. This land bearing survey no.336 is treated as dry crop land. The land bearing survey no.221 is considered as irrigated land for which compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.45,500/- per hectare. Land bearing survey no.221 is an orchard. The land acquisition officer has awarded separate compensation for 537 orange trees, 6 guava trees, 1 jamun tree, 2 pomegranate trees, 8 lemon trees, 1 awla tree. Apart from this, compensation is also awarded for non fruit bearing trees i.e. 12 teak trees, 21 babul trees and 16 neem trees.

6. The rate of each orange tree is fixed at Rs.3255.28 in the award passed by the

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