IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Grant of cumulative increase in market value of land is not an absolute rule – It is optional and may be granted in a given case only.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 02.12.2021 of the High Court in First Appeal No.492 of 2017 and in Cross Objection No.65 of 2017 filed therein. The High Court has allowed the appeal of the respondents and had dismissed the cross objections of the appellant herein.

3. The controversy in this appeal is regarding determination of fair and adequate compensation for the acquired land, the fruit trees existing thereon and the borewell.

4. The appellant was the owner of the lands bearing Survey No.14 admeasuring 4.32 hectares, Survey No.15 admeasuring 1.40 hectares and Survey No. 17 admeasuring 5.87 hectares situate in village Barad, taluka Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal, Maharashtra. The aforesaid land was acquired for the benefit of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation by the State of Maharashtra by issuing a notification dated 24.07.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894¹[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. The Land Acquisition Officer²[In short ‘LAO’], passed an award on 27.06.2005 offering compensation of the aforesaid land to the appellant as under:

5. The appellant was not satisfied by the compensation offered by the LAO. Therefore, he accepted the compensation amounting to Rs.17,13,445/- under protest and preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act for the enhancement of compensation, claiming an additional amount of Rs.2,06,88,000/-. The Civil Judge Sr. Division allowed the reference in part and granted additional compensation vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2015.

6. The appellant still not satisfied, applied for review of the aforesaid judgment and order alleging that in respect of land bearing Survey No.17, he had not been granted any compensation for the 1824 fruit bearing awala trees existing thereon as well as the borewell. The review application was allowed and the compensation in respect of the aforesaid awala trees and the borewell was also determined and awarded vide order dated 05.08.2015.

7. Thus, aggrieved by the order passed on the review application granting compensation for the awala trees and the borewell situate on land bearing Survey No.17, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court. The appeal was admitted only on the limited aspect whether the award of compensation for the trees and the borewell is permissible in a review, but subsequently the order admitting the appeal on the above limited ground was modified and the appeal was ordered to be heard on merits without any restrictions. In the said appeal, cross objections were filed by the appellant claiming further enhancement.

8. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the cross-objections of the appellant and partly allowed the appeal holding that the award of compensation for the awala trees and the borewell existing on land bearing Survey No.17 is per se illegal and, thus, the award was accordingly directed to be modified.

9. We have heard Shri Pallav Sisodia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri Uday B. Dube, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

10. The main thrust of the argument of Shri Pallav Sisodia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, is that in awarding the compensation for the land, reliance was placed upon an exemplar sale deed of the year 1994 and since the present acquisition was of the year 2003, 10% rise per year was allowed in awarding the compensation but this 10% rise per year ought to have been with cumulative effect. In this connection, he has relied upon Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development