KASTURABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal calls-in-question the quantum of compensation amount determined by the learned Reference Court, Aurangabad, in LAR No. 173 of 2006 filed by the appellant-original claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894").

(2.) The factual aspects relevant to the present appeal in brief are that the agricultural lands Gut Nos. 162 and 166 admeasuring 02.30 R and 00.41 R respectively of the appellant-claimant located at village Leha Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad were placed under acquisition for submergence area of Wakod medium project. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was published in the official Gazette on 13-02-1997. After compliance of procedural formalities, the SLAO, proceeded to make award as contemplated under Section 11 of Act of 1894. The appellant-claimant did not accept the price determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO") for his acquired lands, fruit bearing trees and other improvement carried out in the field. Therefore, she accepted the compensation amount offered by the SLAO under protest and filed the Reference petition under Section 18 of Act of 1894 for indulgence of the Court to determine the just and reasonable market value of the lands under acquisition. The learned Reference Court dealt with the Reference petition of the appellant-claimant and on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence adduced on record partly allowed the Reference Petition and agreed to enhance the market price of acquired lands from Rs.494 per R calculated by SLAO to market price @ Rs. 2100/- per R for land Gut No. 162, whereas amount @ Rs. 2626/- per R for land Gut No. 166. But, the learned Reference Court found reluctant to allow any enhancement in the valuation of fruit bearing trees. Therefore, the claim of appellant - claimant for enhancement of compensation for fruit bearing trees was rejected by the learned Reference Court. Being aggrieved by refusal of learned Reference Court to enhance the compensation for fruit bearing trees and also for improper determination of market price of acquired lands, the appellant-claimant rushed to this Court and preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 for redressal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for appellant-claimant, at the threshold, fairly conceded that the appellant-claimant has no any grievance about the market price of acquired lands fixed by the learned Reference Court. However, the appellant-claimant has strong objection in regard to the mode and manner in which the learned Reference Court dealt with the evidence of horticulturist, who was the expert in the agriculture field. The CW-2 Dr. Gaikwad was the Government approved valuer, having requisite educational qualification. He visited to the lands of the claimant under acquisition and carried out the inspection. He prepared the valuation report of fruit bearing trees as per norms prescribed by the Government. The learned Reference Court ought to have appreciated the evidence of experts for determination of value of acquired trees. The learned counsel for appellant harped on the circumstances that the learned Reference Court did not consider the evidence on record in proper manner. The findings expressed by the learned Reference Court for discarding the evidence of experts are erroneous, illegal and based on misinterpretation of provisions of law. According to learned counsel, there was no dispute about the existence of trees and its number in the acquired land. The SLAO granted the compensation for trees located in the lands. The number of trees in existence in the acquired land were also reflected in the report of joint measurement and spot inspection carried out by the Government Personnel. The learned counsel for appellant fervidly submits that the respondent-State has acquired the lands and various trees, well and pipe line etc. for medium irrigation project. Therefore, the just and reasonable compensation is essential to be received to the appellant-claimant for the loss caused to him due to compulsory acquisition proceeding.