COLLECTOR, NAGPUR Vs. SHEIKH SEMIULLA BADULLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 24th September, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 327/1993.

(2.) THE original claimants are the owner of a land bearing Survey No. 501 admeasuring 8.82 hectares at village Khumari, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur. The said land was acquired for Minor Irrigation Project by the Government of Maharashtra. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (henceforth abbreviated to "the L.A. Act") was issued on 12.5.1988 in the Government Gazette. Section 6 notification was published on 20.7.1989 and then the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued final award on 26.6.1992 thereby fixing the total compensation of Rs. 11,33,537/ -. The original claimants found the award inadequate and was not satisfied with the amount of the compensation hence approached the Collector, Nagpur who, made a reference to the Civil Court; and an Application u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act was preferred by the original claimants. The original claimants made a claim of Rs. 89,46,424.00. The learned Judge after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties, enhanced the amount of the award and fixed the compensation at Rs. 36,08,000/ - excluding the amount of award and granted other benefits, i.e. interest and solatium as per the provisions of the Act.

(3.) MRS . Kalyani Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is exorbitant and illegal. The learned Judge of the Court below has committed an error while fixing compensation and making the calculations of the compensation of the trees. She submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of DW 1 -Mohammad Mumtazuddin Mohd. Amirdudin, SLAO. The SLAO while considering the valuation, has taken into account various sale instances and for the valuation of the trees relied on the report of the Deputy Director of Horticulture. She argued that once the value of the land including value of the trees is fixed by the Reference Court, then the Court cannot again separately determine the compensation for fruit -bearing trees. In support of her submissions, she relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (Dead) Through LRs and others v. State of Maharashtra reported in : 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. page 9.