The State of Maharashtra vs Santoshrao Tatoba Nagpure

By this appeal, the appellant/State has challenged the

judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the Court of Joint Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur (reference Court) whereby total

compensation of Rs. 48,97,728/- has been granted along with statutory

benefits to the respondents/claimants being the legal representatives of

the original claimant.

The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 in the present case was issued on 08.10.1992 for acquisition of land

belonging to the claimants admeasuring 8.98 HR from Survey No. 17 at

village Ridhora (Gujar) in Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur. The Land

Acquisition Officer passed award upon completion of the acquisition

proceedings determining compensation payable to the claimants for

acquisition of the said land and fruit bearing and other trees existing on

the said land at the time of acquisition. The fact that fruit bearing trees

and other trees existed on the land at the time of issuance of the

Notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was not disputed in the

proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer and the number of such

trees was also not disputed.

But, the original claimant was dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated

08.10.1992 and he preferred an application under Section 18 of the said Act

which was considered as Land Acquisition Case No. 53 of 1995 by the

reference Court. The claimant placed on record elaborate documentary

and oral evidence in support of his claim of enhanced compensation. The

claimant examined Mr. Dadan Borkar, an Expert in Horticulture in order to

prove his claim that the quantum of compensation granted for the trees

was on the lower side. The said expert placed a valuation report on record

and he also appeared as witness on behalf of the claimant.

A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the reference

Court shows that the report and evidence of the aforesaid Expert (PW-2)

was taken into account and the reference Court found that it could not be

accepted in toto. In paragraph 36 of its judgment, the reference Court

found that the value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the

fruit bearing and other trees could not be accepted. At the same time, it

was found by the reference Court that the correct valuation of the trees

could be arrived at by adding together the value determined by the Land

Acquisition Officer and the rates given by the aforesaid expert witness and

then dividing the figure by two. The reference Court found that by doing

so, a moderate, just and acceptable amount of compensation could be

determined for the trees. On this basis, the reference Court determined

the value of fruit bearing and other trees by determining the rate per tree.

Thereafter, the said figures were multiplied by the number of fruit bearing

and other trees that were found to have been existing on the land of the

claimant. Since there was no dispute as regards the number of trees, the

reference Court could arrive at specific figure in respect of the quantum of

compensation payable for each category of tree. This exercise was carried

out by the reference Court in paragraph 39 of the impugned judgment and

order.

Insofar as determination of compensation for the land is

concerned, the reference Court took into consideration sale instance dated

30.04.1992 (Exh.83) placed on record on behalf of the claimant. The said

sale instance was found to be a genuine document and since the

notification under Section 4 of the said Act for acquisition of land of the

claimant was dated 08.10.1992, the said sale instance was taken as a valid

reference document for determining the market value of the land.

Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the appellant/State was unable to point out any

error in the aforesaid findings rendered by the reference Court, which were

based on detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on

record. Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents/claimants supported the findings of the reference Court.

As noted above, the reference Court considered the oral and

documentary evidence on record in detail while rendering findings in

favour of the claimant. The entire claim of the claimant based on the

valuation report and evidence of the expert was not accepted by the

reference Court and a proper formula was adopted to arrive at moderate,

just and acceptable figures of compensation. Since the appellant is unable

to point out any error committed by the reference Court while enhancing

the compensation payable to the claimants, I do not find any merit in the

instant appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order

of the reference Court is confirmed. Since the judgment and order of the

reference Court is confirmed, the amount of compensation determined

therein shall be paid forthwith along with statutory benefits by the

appellant/State to the respondents/claimants. If the entire amount or any

part thereof had been deposited by the appellant in this Court or in the

reference Court, the said amount along with accrued interest shall be paid

to the respondents/claimants forthwith. There shall be no order as to

costs.