Ramrao s/o Sakharam Shingne (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs & Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

. Heard.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and award passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana, dated 28.11.2012 in LAC No.73/2002, whereby according to the appellant, finding recorded towards the refusal of compensation for the fruit-bearing trees and pipeline are incorrect, on this count, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

In the present matter, the facts which are undisputed are that in pursuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20.11.1995, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has acquired land of 1.52 hectare of Mouza Garkhed Tah. Deulgaonraja for Khadakpurna Project. In the said land acquisition proceedings, the compensation has been awarded to appellant by determining the market rate of Rs.41,000/- per acre. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.56,759/- per hectare for Gat No.11 admeasuring 0.42 HR land, Rs.56,759/- in respect of Gat No. 12 of 0.49 HR, Rs.56,759/- in respect of Gat No.27 of 0.33 HR and Rs.56,759/- in respect of Gat No.45 admeasuring 0.28 HR land. As such, according to the appellant, the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not adequate for the acquired land.

Being dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant has preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is the contention of the present appellant in his reference proceedings that the village Garkhed is situated near a village Deulgaonmahi and located to such a place where all transportation facilities like buses, trucks etc. is available and near the big market place. Hence, he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/-per acre.

The appellant specifically pleaded before the Reference Court that there were 100 Sweet lime, 100 Orange Trees aged about 6 to 7 years. From said fruit-bearing trees, he used to earn at least Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per year as net income. So also, the water well having 50 to 60 in depth constructed in bricks with cement having perennial source of water. He has laid down pipeline in Gat No.11 and 12 from Khadakpurna river and thereby invested huge amount therein.

In light of this submission and the evidence which brought on record, the Reference Court has decided the reference by the order dated 29.11.2012. The learned Reference Court has enhanced compensation of Rs.41,000/- per hectare, towards acquired land but, no compensation awarded towards the fruit-bearing trees, which were standing according to the appellant in the acquired land. So also, no compensation awarded towards the well and pipeline, which was existing in the acquired land for irrigating purposes.

According to the appellant, due to non-consideration of material aspects by the Reference Court, the matter needs to be remanded back to ascertain correct market value of the fruit-bearing trees, well and pipeline.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has strongly opposed this appeal. According to him, the learned Reference Court, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decided the matter. It was for the appellant to point out to the Reference Court during his submission, how he is entitled for the compensation towards the fruit-bearing trees and pipeline. However, appellant failed to satisfy the learned Reference Court and, therefore, the learned Reference Court has passed the judgment by considering the record, which was made available before the Reference Court at the time of hearing. Therefore, there is no need of any interference of this Court in the matter.

The appellant, during the course of argument, has pointed out from the record that in the land acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has prepared a Joint Measurement Report (JMR) and in the said JMR, there is a specific mention of standing Mosambi and Orange trees in the acquired land. So also, in respect of a pipeline, it is also mentioned under the head of pipeline that in the field of appellant, there was a pipeline of 460 mtrs. length. In view of this, it is the submission of the appellant that whatever contention he has raised, was a part and parcel of the record. This fact is not disputed by the respondent before the Reference Court nor any grievance has been raised of not availability of standing trees and pipeline in the agricultural field of the appellant.

Appellant also pointed out that in his pleadings, in the application, he has specifically stated that there were standing trees in this field and entitled for the compensation. So also, raised grievance of enhancement towards well and pipeline. Hence, prima facie, it is made clear that in the JMR, there was mention of trees and in the pleadings of the applicant, this fact was specifically mentioned. But there is no proper consideration of factual aspect by Reference Court.

The appellant, in light of this submission, has relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No.214/2016, wherein also the same controversy was arose and thereby this Court enhanced the compensation towards land at the rate of Rs.2,05,000/- per hectare and for other issues remanded back the matter to the Reference Court to decide the issue regarding fruit-bearing trees, pipeline etc. by recording evidence and decide the same afresh.

In the present appeal, it is also clear that there is no evidence led by parties. Only on the basis of decision in LAC No.14/2002 and 20/2002 decided the reference proceedings on 13.07.2011. Appellant states that due to not having proper instructions as to how the reference proceedings are to be contested, they did not enter in to the witness box nor examine the Valuer in the matter. According to appellant, if they get one opportunity, they will established on record the correct market value of Trees, well and pipeline. In my view, considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Act being a piece of beneficial legislation, appellants deserve one opportunity to prove their case.

The perusal of the judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2023, demonstrates the fact that the land involved therein was arising out of the same land acquisition proceedings and for the same project. So also, the village is also same i.e. village Garkhed. This Court, while deciding the appeal, has held that the land owner therein is entitled for the enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.2,05,000/- with all statutory benefits and interest. This fact is not disputed by the respondent- acquiring body in the matter.

In view of above, I proceed to pass the following order:

The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.