AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vasanti A. Naik, J.—By this appeal, the appellant State challenges the judgment passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana, on 23rd August, 1990, in Land Acquisition Case No. 26 of 1989, granting compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per acre to the respondents for the acquired land and Rs. 1,500/-for the mango tree along with interest, solatium and other benefits .According to the appellant State, the compensation is on higher side.
Few facts giving rise to the first appeal are stated thus;
The land of the present respondents was situated at village Palaskhed Bhat in Taluka & District Buldana. The same was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of construction of irrigation tank at Palaskhed Bhat. Section 4 notification was issued on 23/8/1986. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 23rd March, 1989 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per hectare. The respondents were not satisfied with the grant of meagre compensation, and hence they filed the Reference Application before the Collector, Buldana. The matter was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 26 of 1989. The reference Court partly allowed the reference application and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for the acquired land and Rs. 1,500/- was granted for the mango tree. The State has challenged the award passed by the Reference Court on 23rd August, 1990.
Mr. Sonare, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in the instant case there was hardly any evidence on record to show that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time in the year 1986 was Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The learned AGP submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per hectare and the reference Court was not justified in enhancing it. The learned AGP then submitted that the reference Court committed a serious error in granting separate compensation for the Mango tree, as it is a well settled position that separate compensation cannot be granted for trees when the compensation is granted for land. The learned AGP relied on the decision reported in State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another etc., , to substantiate his submission.
Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the award passed by the Reference Court on 23rd August, 1990 and submitted that just prior to the issuance of Section 4 notification in this case, the lands were sold at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre and Rs. 32,000/- per acre. These sale deeds were produced as Exh. 14 & Exh.15 in the connected Land Acquisition Case No. 25 of 1989. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the transaction fetching the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre, the transaction was effected between the uncle and nephew and therefore, the price at which the land was sold was lessor than the market value. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Mango tree yielded good fruits and therefore, the reference Court was justified in granting separate compensation for the Mango tree.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this first appeal.
(i) Whether the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre is just & proper?
(ii) Whether grant of compensation of Rs. 1,500/- for mango tree was justified?
(iii) What order?
To consider the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the evidence on record. In the instant case, the claimant entered into witness-box. It was categorically deposed by the claimant that he used to take 2-3 crops from the land during the year. He deposed that he took Kharip crops like hybrid Jowar, Mung, Chawli, Chilli and Cotton. He further stated that he took Rabbi crops like Gram, Wheat, Groundnut ,onion etc. He had also stated in his examination-in-chief that he took the crop of sugarcane and his land was know as �Seed land�. According to the claimant, the market value of the land could not have been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the land revenue because the land revenue was constant for the last 50 years. The claimant has placed 7/12 extract on record to show the crops yielded from the land. Nothing was brought out from the cross examination of the claimant to disbelieve his case in the examination-in-chief.
Apart from the aforesaid evidence, two sale deeds were relied on by the claimant to prove the market value of the land. By one of the transactions, which was executed just prior to the issuance of Section 4 notification, land was sold at the rate of Rs. 32,000/- per acre. Similarly, by another transaction which was also effected some time before the issuance of Section 4 notification, the land was sold at the rte of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. The claimant has explained the reasons for the lower consideration in this transaction, as the transaction was effected between the uncle and nephew.
In such circumstances, the reference Court considered the oral evidence tendered by the claimant on record along with the two sale deeds which were produced in Land Acquisition Act, Case No. 25 of 1989 to hold that the market value of the land was not less than Rs. 30,000/- per acre at the relevant time. The approach of the reference Court in determining the compensation is just and proper. The grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre is also just and proper.
The reference Court was, however, not justified in granting separate compensation for the mango tree. The grant of compensation of Rs. 1,500/- for the mango tree cannot be sustained. It is a well settled position of law that the land and the trees standing thereon have to be considered as one Unit and separate compensation cannot be granted for the trees. The learned AGP has rightly relied on the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 106 in this regard.
In the result, the first appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the reference court granting compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for the acquired land is hereby confirmed. The order granting compensation of Rs. 1,500/- for the mango tree is hereby quashed and set aside. The award passed by the reference court on 23rd August, 2009, is modified accordingly.
No order as to costs.