(1.) The present Cross Objection is filed by the land owner seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation granted by the learned Reference Court vide judgment and award dtd. 3/4/2013 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.281/2006.
(2.) The land owner is referred in the judgment as "cross objector" and acquiring body/VIDC is referred as "appellant" since the appeal under Sec. 54 was preferred by it in which the land owner has filed cross objection.
(3.) Initially, the acquiring body/Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (V.I.D.C.) filed appeal challenging the judgment and award dtd. 3/4/2013 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No.281/2006 whereby the land acquisition reference initiated at the behest of the respondent no.1 land owner was partly allowed thereby enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer in lieu of acquisition of land of the respondent no.1. The original applicant/land owner has filed Cross-Objection No.27/2016 seeking further enhancement of compensation determined by the learned Reference Court. The appeal and cross objection were decided vide judgment and order dtd. 30/3/2023. The appeal and cross objection were dismissed holding that determination of compensation by the learned Reference Court was just and proper. The said judgment and order came to be assailed by the cross objector land owner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal No.12972/2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment dtd. 30/3/2023 and was further pleased to direct this Court to reconsider the valuation report (Exhibit C-2) relied upon by the cross objector for valuation of trees and the issue with respect to land bearing survey no.336 being an irrigated land or dry crop land. It will be pertinent to mention here that the other land bearing survey no.221 is considered to be an irrigated land by the land acquisition officer as also by the learned Reference Court. Both the parties agree that survey no.221 is an irrigated land. The direction to reconsider the nature of land is thus for land bearing survey no.336 on which the parties are at a contention.