Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs Shyamrao Rakshit & Ors.

. Heard Mr. J. B. Kasat, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. C. R. Najbile, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. M. A. Kadu, learned AGP for the Respondent/State.

By way of both the Appeals, the Appellant/VIDC has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 23/9/2009 passed by the 2^nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur in LAC No.77/2001 and LAC No.78/2001, whereby the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation, viz – for 97 big orange trees at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per tree, for 57 small orange trees, at the rate of Rs.2500/- per tree and Rs.700/- per lime tree in LAC No.77/2001. Whereas, in Land Acquisition Case No. 78/2001, the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation, viz – for 50 big orange trees at the rate of Rs.4000/- per tree, and for 62 small orange trees at the rate of Rs.2500/- per tree and Rs.1000/- towards four Anjan trees.

The issue involved in both the Appeals is same, and therefore, both the Appeals have decided by common Judgment and the facts of First Appeal No. 77/2001 are taken into consideration for deciding both the Appeals.

It is the case of the Respondent/Claimant before the learned Reference Court that the land owned by the Claimant bearing Survey No. 72/5, area 0.50 HR situated at village Khairi, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur was acquired for Chikhli Nala Project under Notification dated 22/1/1998. In the land acquisition proceeding, the learned Land Acquisition Officer, vide Award dated 10/3/2000 has awarded meagre amount of Rs.39,500/- per hectare for land and Rs.2,80,530/- for fruit bearing trees, thus, total compensation of Rs.4,48,682/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

The Respondent/Claimant, being dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, preferred the reference. In the reference, the Appellant has relied upon the sale instances of the adjoining lands wherein also the orange and other trees were standing in the field.

It is the case of the Respondent/Claimant that he has examined himself and the Valuer before the Reference Court to prove his case. Accordingly, he has discharged his initial burden before the Reference Court that there were total 97 big orange trees, which are having good fruit capacity and 57 small orange trees of four years. Accordingly, by considering the evidence which was made available on record in the nature of oral as well as documentary, the learned Reference Court, vide impugned Judgment and Award has awarded Rs.4000/- per big orange tree, Rs.2500/- per small orange tree and Rs.700/- per lime tree.

The submission of the Appellant in the present matter is that the Valuer, who has been relied upon by the Reference Court, is not an authentic Valuer. He has not done valuation of the trees in a scientific manner to reach to the proper conclusion. The age of the trees is also not properly recorded in the Valuation Report and exorbitant amount has been determined without considering various factors which are necessary to draw proper market rate of trees. According to the Appellant, this fact is clear, because the learned Reference Court himself has not relied upon the entire Valuation Report and made deduction towards various aspects which were not considered by the Valuer in his Valuation Report. Hence, according to him, compensation awarded on the basis of such valuation report should not have considered as a concrete proof to reach to the conclusion that Respondents/Land owners are entitled for Rs.4000/- per big orange tree and Rs.2500/- per small orange tree.

The perusal of the record shows that on behalf of the Appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer has entered into the witness-box. He has admitted the fact that there were big orange trees as well as small orange trees. According to him, the valuation done by him is proper in the matter and it is also stated on his behalf that on the day of preparing Joint Measurement Report, the trees which were standing in the field of Respondent were six years old, but, it is not disclosed by which method he has done the calculation for determining the valuation of the trees. To contradict the valuation report relied upon by the Respondent/Land owner no independent Expert or any like evidence was produced by the Appellant. Hence, in the light of evidence, the learned Reference Court, on the basis of sale instances which were placed on record before the Reference Court and by analysing the evidence of the Valuer, has determined the valuation of the trees and thereby held that the Appellant is entitled for compensation.

The Appellant/VIDC in their Appeal has stated that the determination of market value at the instance of learned Reference Court is not proper and the same should be reduced from Rs.4000/- to Rs.3000/- and no compensation is required to be paid for the small orange trees.

Per contra, in Cross Objection, the Cross Objector came with a submission that when the Appellant has produced the evidence on record and the report of the Valuer is produced, the learned Reference Court, who is not the expert in determining the valuation, ought to have relied upon the report of Valuer and awarded the higher compensation as per the Valuation Report. Hence, according to him, he is entitled for higher compensation.

During the course of hearing, the Appellant as well as Respondent has placed reliance on the various Judgments passed by this Court arising out of the same land acquisition proceeding, one of them was placed on record in First Appeal No. 1649/2008 (The State of Maharashtra & Anr. V/s Dnyaneshwar Yeshwantrao Sathe), wherein this Court has confirmed the rate determined by the Reference Court by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. On perusal of the said Judgment it is clear that same argument was raised in the said Appeal by the Appellant. However, this Court turned down all grounds raised by the Appellant and confirmed the Judgment of Reference Court.

In First Appeal No. 215/2013 also this Court, while deciding the Appeal, by considering the law laid down by this Court in other cases has held that the Appellants therein are entitled for compensation for fruit bearing trees at the rate of Rs.5500/- per orange tree and thereby awarded the compensation.

In First Appeal No. 96/2012 decided along with First Appeal No. 97/2012, this Court has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/-per orange tree, Rs. 5000/- per sweet lime tree, Rs.750/- per lemon tree and Rs.500/- per Ber tree.

In the light of these various Judgments, the submission of the Claimant is that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D. Eswara Naidu and Others V/s Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), (2019) 13 Supreme Court Cases 785, if the Court, in the adjoining field or of the area surrounding of the field in question has determined the value of the land, then by applying the rule of parity, same rate should be made applicable in the matter.

According to the Appellant, rule of parity can be made applicable only in case both the cases were found identical and similar in nature. In the light of this submission, I have perused the record. The perusal of the record demonstrates that the Respondent/Claimant has adduced the evidence before the Reference Court to prove his case. So also the Valuer was examined before the Reference Court. Per contra, the Appellant/VIDC has only examined the Land Acquisition Officer in the matter. Perusal of the record, more particularly, evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer, clearly demonstrates the fact that he has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that he has determined the valuation of the trees on the basis of sale instances. The Reference Court, while deciding the reference application, has also applied same method and on that basis determined the market value.

Therefore, the sale instances are required to be considered in the matter. The Judgment of this Court which referred above are also from same village, particularly, the Judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 96/2012. There is a specific discussion as to how the Court evaluated the evidence of the same Valuer and reached to the conclusion that the land owner is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/- per orange tree. Hence, in my view, the Judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal No. 96/2012 is more relevant in the matter. Accordingly, once this Court has considered entire evidence, sale exemplar and by evaluating the evidence of valuer, same is applicable in the present matter.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that Respondents/Claimants herein are entitled for compensation towards big trees at the rate of Rs.5000/- and small trees at the rate of Rs.2500/-. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the following order is passed.