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
(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
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.
Compensation for land and trees cannot be awarded separately when determined by income capitalization method; it constitutes a composite valuation.
Compensation for land and trees cannot be awarded separately when determined by income capitalization method, as it includes both values.
Compensation for land and trees under the Land Acquisition Act must be based on reliable evidence, and when determined by income capitalization method, it includes both land and trees, prohibiting se....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just, fair, and reasonable compensation for acquired land and fruit-bearing trees under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the income capitalization method and specific valuation methods for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 189....
In a case where land value has been determined with reference to sales statistics, trees will have to be valued separately.
The court established that compensation for acquired land and trees must be based on fair market value and supported by credible evidence, with a clear obligation to adhere to established legal prece....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the correct market value of the acquired land and the valuation of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.