AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LAC No.182/2003 filed by the appellant before Adhoc District Judge-5 at Amravati came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 07/09/2007 on two counts. Firstly that the Reference Court barred by limitation and secondly on merits holding that the appellant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence on record to show that Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded fair amount of compensation for the acquisition of land and orange trees. Hence he has preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of the appeal are to the effect that appellant is owner and occupant of land bearing field Survey No.217 admeasuring 2.40H situate at village Dhanodi. It is the case of the appellant that there is a orchard of 300 orange fruit bearing trees and a pacca built up well. The field was irrigated filed. Out of the said piece of land, the respondents have acquired middle strip of 0.58 hectare land alongwith 140 orange fruit bearing tees for the purpose of Chandrabhaga Distribution Canal. As per the grievance of the appellant though total 140 orange trees were standing on the acquired piece of land, valuation agency counted only 122 orange fruit bearing trees and dropped 18 trees. Moreover, due to acquisition of this middle strip of land from the field of the appellant, he could not irrigate the remaining 105 orange fruit bearing trees as the well of the instant field situated in eastern side of field and all these 105 orange fruit bearing trees remained on the western side. Respondent No.3 has not granted permission to put the pipe line on the canal lift water from eastern to western side. Thus 105 orange fruit bearing trees dried and appellant sustained loss for the same. Therefore he claimed compensation towards that amount also. However LAO totally granted him the compensation of Rs.2,21,722/only holding the market price of the fruits from the said trees @ Rs.300/for one thousand fruits though the actual market price was Rs.500/per thousand fruits. The LAO has also not calculated the correct market value of the acquired land. The amount of compensation awarded on the said count was also inadequate. Similarly no amount of compensation was granted to the appellant for the loss of 105 orange fruit bearing trees. Thus appellant claimed total compensation of Rs.15,28,000/but restricted claim up to Rs.10,00,000/along with solatium, interest, costs etc.
This petition came to be resisted by the respondents denying that LAO has not properly calculated the valuation of the acquired land. It was also denied that 105 orange fruit bearing tees of the appellant dried as a result of non supply of water on account of acquisition of middle strip of land. It was also denied that LAO has not calculated either the market price of the orange fruit bearing trees or even the market value of the acquired piece of land properly. It was submitted that as the LAO has calculated the entire amount of compensation after taking into consideration the provisions of law and also the factual situation, no interference was warranted therein. As attempt was also made to contend that the reference was not filed within limitation and hence it was barred. On the basis of respective pleadings of both the parties, the Reference Court framed necessary issues for its consideration relating to the petition being barred by limitation and secondly whether appellant received inadequate amount of compensation. Reference Court answered both these issues in negative and accordingly dismissed the reference petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None present for respondent No.3. On the basis of submissions advanced by them and on perusal of the impugned judgment of the Reference Court and the evidence adduced before it, I am not more than satisfied that the Reference Court has committed error on both the factual and legal aspects. It is pertinent to note that Reference Court has dismissed the claim of the petitioner on account that it is barred by limitation and while arriving at this finding, Reference Court has implicitly held that reference was necessary to be filed within six weeks (42 days) from the date of award and as the award in this case was passed on 16/09/2001 and the reference was filed on 28/03/2002, the Reference Court held that it was barred by limitation. However while arriving at this finding, learned Reference Judge has clearly overlooked and neglected the provisions of Section12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act according to which only after receipt of notice and that too accompanied with the copy of award so that the claimant could exercise his right of appeal effectively, the period of limitation can start. In the recent case it is pointed out that as per the averments in the petition, notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was received by the appellant on 22/02/2002 and the reference is filed on 19/03/2010. This fact was not at all controverted and in such situation it can hardly be called that the reference was filed beyond limitation. Therefore the relevant finding of the Reference Court on this issue needs to be set aside and it has to be held that the reference before the Reference Court was within limitation.
Now coming to the merits of the case. In the course of his submission in support of his case that LAO has not accordingly determined the value of the land acquired and the orange trees, the appellant has examined himself and also led evidence of about three witnesses including the concerned officer from APMC to prove loss of orange trees on account of acquisition of middle strip of land. He has also examined the adjoining land owner. On behalf of respondent No.3, the witness by name Anil N. Ladole has examined himself. Perusal of judgment of the Reference Court reveals that Reference Court has refused to place reliance on the evidence of these witnesses on the count of certain admissions given by them in their crossexamination. It is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of concerned witness from APMC office giving prospective market price for orange fruits for the relevant period was that minimum rate of RS.300/per quintal and maximum rate was Rs.600/per quintal. Average rate was Rs.450/per quintal for the year 1997-98. For the year 1998-99 minimum market rate of orange fruits was Rs.500/per quintal and maximum rate was of Rs. 800/per quintal. The same rate increased to minimum of Rs.450/per quintal and maximum of Rs.1000/per quintal. Even if it is accepted that appellant was not selling orange fruits to the APMC as admitted by him, considering the fact that his field was irrigated and the rate which is awarded by the LAO @ Rs.3000/for 1000 orange fruits being too meagre and at that rate holding the appellant entitled for compensation of Rs.1125/per orange fruit bearing tree, such amount of compensation cannot be called in any way as fair and just compensation. In this respect we cannot lose sight that the respondent has acquired the middle strip of field of the appellant and as a result he is suffering in both ways as is well situate at western side. It may be proved that It is admitted by this witness that appellant has taken proper precaution that these trees cannot be damaged but this Court cannot close eyes to the factual situation of the sight. Moreover, the horticulture report filed by the appellant even if it is taken to on an exaggerated side, it can be seen that as the trees of the appellant in Mouje Dhanodi were valued by the LAO at Rs.3000/per quintal whereas in respect of another award of Mouje Gava the valuation of the orange trees belonging to Namdeorao Narayanrao Pande were offered Rs.2149/per tree. It is submitted that village Dhanodi and village Gava are just adjacent. In my considered opinion, the appellant becomes entitled to get compensation @ Rs.2000 per orange fruit bearing tree which can be called just and reasonable amount of compensation instead of the amount of Rs.1125/per tree as awarded by the LAO.
The appellant has also claimed that at the time of acquisition, there were totally 140 orange trees acquired by the LAO. However he has been awarded compensation only for 122 orange trees. Appellant has not taken objection at the relevant time and therefore he become entitled for compensation for 122 orange trees only and not 140 orange trees as claimed by him. Thus appeal is allowed. The impunged judgment and order passed by the Reference Court is quashed and set aside. The reference petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the appellant is held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.3000/per orange fruit bearing tree in place of Rs.1125/for 122 trees along with all statutory benefits.
Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation within three months. On such deposit the appellant would be entitled to withdraw the said amount. Ordered accordingly.
Appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.