State of Maharashtra and Others vs Dadaraoji Pandurangji Gainar

A.P. Bhangale, J—The instant First Appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dt. 25.4.2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 72 of 2001 whereby the learned reference Judge granted enhanced compensation @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare for the land acquired which is situated at village Pathrad (Gole), Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the learned reference Judge committed an error of law and facts on record to enhance compensation to the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare for the land under acquisition in the present case. According to the learned A.G.P., the land bearing Gat No. 281 is admeasuring 3 Hs. 79 R. while land Gat No. 247 is admeasuring 1 H. 62 R situated at village Pathrad. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the amount of compensation fixed by the learned Reference Judge is exorbitant and excessive and no scientific method for determination of compensation was adopted. Further, according to her, there was no cogent evidence to calculate market value of acquired land in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/­ per hectare. She, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 72 of 2001 by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Yavatmal on 25.4.2002.

These submissions are vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent on the ground that the impugned Judgment is well reasoned and supported by the cogent evidence on record. It is pointed out from the record that the learned reference Judge was guided by Valuation report in respect of the acquired land. The claim of the compensation before the reference Court was based on evidence led by the claimants namely Devanand Deulkar (PW-2) and Vishnu Paradkar (PW-3). The expert''s opinion stated about the existing bandh, various fruit bearing trees, existing pipeline, borewell etc. He has deposed about valuation of fruit bearing trees such as Orange, Bor, Lemon, Bamboo, Neem etc. It is submitted that the documentary evidence (Exh. Nos. 26 to 77) was proved by the claimants including Valuation Report in respect of bandh and well in Gat No. 281 and 247 which were irrigated lands. The learned reference Judge did consider the Valuation reports (Exh. Nos. 86 and 87) in respect of the acquired lands and also the fact that the present appellants did not lead evidence of any witness to support the Award granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. No evidence was led by the appellants to rebut the evidence of experts adduced by the respondents/claimants. It is under these facts and circumstances that the learned reference Judge awarded reasonable compensation @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare as also compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,42,703/- for fruit bearing trees like Orange trees as also Bor and Lemon trees apart from Bamboo and Neem trees. Learned reference Judge also appears to have considered the income capitalization method in order to award just and reasonable compensation for the acquired land. Thus, the learned Counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned Judgment and Order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

In the Cross Appeal under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant therein has contended that the reference Court failed to grant proper interest payable in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and reduced the component to the extent of 12 % p.a. only failing to consider implication of Section 23­A of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, according to the appellant, the award granted by the learned reference Court ought to be enhanced and modified.

The learned A.G.P. questioned the Cross Appeal on the ground of bar of limitation as the respondent did not file the Cross Appeal within thirty days after they were served with the notice of admission of appeal.

I have heard the rival submissions at the bar and perused the impugned Judgment and Order as also reasons stated therein. In the light of the ruling cited by the learned A.G.P. in the case of Shri Ambya Kalya Mhatre (d) through legal heirs and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 RCR(Civil) 767 : (2011) 10 SCALE 296 : (2011) 5 UJ 3322 , reference is made to para 35 in order to submit that if the land value is determined with reference to sale statistics or compensation awarded for nearby vacant land, then necessarily the trees will have to be valued separately But, if the value of the land has been determined on the basis of the sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard i.e. land with the fruit bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding the value of the trees.

It appears that the three Judges Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India considered the necessity to value the land acquired with reference to sale statistics or the just compensation to be awarded. If the value of the land acquired is determined on the basis of sale statistics and compensation has been awarded considering the fruit bearing trees standing on the land as an orchard, there is no need of adding value of fruit bearing trees again; particularly when the land was assessed for compensation not as a vacant agricultural land but as a land with trees standing thereupon. In the present case, it appears that the compensation awarded was on the basis of evidence on record including expert''s opinion. The experts had considered quality of lands as well as fruit bearing trees situated in the land of the respondent and had calculated the valuation @ Rs. 1,75,000/­ to Rs. 1,80,000/­ per hectare. The learned reference Judge had also considered the sale instances Exh. Nos. 72 to 74 apart from expert Valuer''s report and then arrived at the logical conclusions on the basis of evidence - documentary as well as oral. That being so, the overall compensation awarded for acquired land including grant of interest was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court with the impugned Judgment and order. In the result, therefore, I do not find any merit in the First Appeal as well as the Cross Appeal preferred at the bar. Hence, the First Appeal as well as the Cross Appeal are dismissed. No order as to costs under the circumstances.