EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA PROJECT, WARDHA Vs. SHANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act') the judgment dtd. 8/12/2015 in Land Acquisition Case No. 96 of 2008 is under challenge.

(2.) Land admeasuring 5 Hectares 67 R from Survey No. 460/1 of Mouza Wathoda, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha was the subject matter of acquisition for submergence under the Lower Wardha Project. Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the said Act was published on 3/2/1999. In the said land, there was a Well with about 1200 Orange trees, 2 Jambhul trees, 6 Lime trees, 10 Bor trees, 6 Sweet Orange trees, 1000 Teak trees, 20 Subabhul trees, 1 Mango tree and one Moha tree. There was also a pipeline in the said field. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award and granted an amount of Rs.7,23,492.00 towards the value of the land. The claimant not being satisfied with award as passed, filed reference proceedings under Sec. 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court by its judgment dtd. 8/12/2015 enhanced the amount granted for the land to Rs.2,20,000.00 per Hectare. For 1200 Orange trees, an amount of Rs.4,885.65 per Orange tree was granted. The compensation was also partially enhanced for other fruit bearing trees and forest trees. The reference was accordingly partly allowed and the enhanced compensation was directed to be paid alongwith statutory interest. The Acquiring Body being aggrieved by the enhancement in the amount of compensation has preferred First Appeal No. 939 of 2017. The claimant has sought enhancement in the compensation for the Orange trees and has filed Cross Objection No. 23 of 2018.

(3.) Shri Abhijit Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation without there being sufficient evidence on its record to support the same. Insofar as the compensation granted for the land was concerned, it was clear that the Land Acquisition Officer after considering various sale instances on his record had rightly awarded compensation for the same. As regards the fruit bearing trees the Reference Court rightly discarded the report of the Valuer which was at Exhibit 39. Similarly, the enhancement granted for the fruit bearing trees was also without supporting evidence in that regard. It was thus submitted that in absence of any substantial evidence to sustain the enhancement in the market value of the land, the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and the award as passed by the Land Acquisition Officer ought to be restored.