The State of Maharashtra vs Saraswati

S.B. Shukre, J.—This appeal is preferred against the judgment and Award passed on 25.08.1994 commonly in Land Acquisition Cases No. 437, 438 and 441 of 1992 and it arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 438 of 1992.

The land of respondents 1 and 2 comprising about 7.05 hectares was acquired for submergence of Arunawati Project vide Land Acquisition Case No. 4/65/84-85 of village Chincholi. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the acquired land of respondents 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per hectare and also granted compensation for two mango trees standing in the acquired land of respondents 1 and 2 at Rs. 2,602/-. The Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 438/92 enhanced the compensation for the acquired land and fixed it at Rs. 55,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court also enhanced compensation for two mango trees at Rs. 4,000/- per tree. Not satisfied with such an enhancement, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

I have heard learned AGP for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. With their assistance, I have gone through the impugned judgment and Award and paper-book of this case. Now, the following points arise for my determination:

(i) Whether grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 55,000/- per hectare for the acquired land was just and proper?

(ii) Whether any compensation for the two mango trees could have been granted?

The learned AGP, on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Reference Court was on the higher side and it could not have been more than 10 considering the grade of the soil and the yield that the acquired land was producing per year. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper and the Reference Court should not have made any interference in the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Reference Court has by application of income capitalisation method rightly fixed the compensation for the dry crop land and it has also been affirmed by this Court in several other cases arising from out of the same project and same village. He, therefore, submits that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Upon going through the impugned judgment and Award, I find that the learned counsel for the respondents is right when he submits that the selection of the multiplier made by the Reference Court is based upon the correct appreciation of evidence on record and there is hardly any scope for interfering with the findings recorded by the Reference Court.

It is seen from the impugned judgment and Award that having regard to the nature of the soil, grade of soil and the yield that it used to produce every year, the Reference Court has taken the minimum income of Rs. 4,000/- per acre, and by deducting Rs. 2,000/- towards expenses, the Reference Court has found the income to be in the range of Rs. 2,000/- per acre per year. The evidence on record shows that respondents 1 and 2 used to get about 41/2 to 5 quintals of cotton per year and used to get income of Rs. 2,500/- or Rs. 3,000/- per year after deducting the expenses. So, the conclusion drawn by the Reference Court appears to be entirely based upon the evidence available on record, and it cannot be said to be perverse. Reference Court has then proceeded to apply the multiplier of 15 by considering the profit for the next 15 years per acre and thus has worked out the price by way of income capitalisation method to be at the rate of Rs. 55,000/- per hectare. The land, without any dispute, was situated on old State Highway, Nanded-Nagpur and, therefore, the selection of 15 years cannot be said to be unjust or improper. Then, in the other connected matters, especially F.A. Nos. 698/94 and 697/94, this Court by the orders passed on 15.7.2010 and on 14.9.2010 respectively, has affirmed the fixation of the price of the land by application of multiplier of 15 by the Reference Court. In this case also, as already stated, the findings recorded in this behalf are supported by the evidence available on record and, therefore, I do not think that any error could be found in fixation of the rate of the acquired land at Rs. 55,000/- per hectare. There is no need to interfere with the finding recorded in this behalf by the Reference Court. The first point is therefore answered as in the negative.

So far as the trees are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer has already found the mango trees standing on the acquired land and this finding is based upon the report of the Survey Officer, which is in a way own report of the Government. However, there is substance in the argument of the learned AGP that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the value of the mango tree could have been at Rs. 4,000/- per tree. The Special Power of Attorney Holder of respondents 1 and 2, Pundlik, in his cross-examination has admitted that the respondents 1 and 2 never got done the valuation of the mango trees from any expert and they did not file any documentary evidence regarding the income from the mango trees. If there is no valuation report in respect of mango trees and no other documentary evidence indicating the yield that they were producing, their age etc., the Reference Court, on assumption, could not have fixed the valuation of mango tree at Rs. 4,000/- per tree, and in the absence of such evidence available on record, the Reference Court should not have modified the valuation done by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the mango trees at Rs. 2,602/-. Therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court in this regard would have to be quashed and set aside. The second point is, therefore, answered accordingly. In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

The appeal is partly allowed. The Award made by the Reference Court insofar as it declares that the respondents are entitled to get enhanced compensation for their acquired land bearing Survey No. 68, admeasuring 7.05 hectares, situated at village Chincholi, at the rate of Rs. 55,000/- per hectare is hereby confirmed. However, the remaining part of the Award relating to declaration that respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to get enhanced compensation for the two mango trees at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per tree, is hereby quashed and set aside and it is substituted by the Award made in this regard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixing the compensation for the two mango trees at Rs. 2,602/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.