Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Narayan Yashwanta Kapse, owned agricultural lands in village Leha, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad, which were acquired for the Wakod medium project. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 13-02-1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) made an award under Section 11, determining compensation at Rs. 494 per R for the land, and also awarded compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements. The appellant accepted the compensation under protest and filed a Reference under Section 18 for enhancement. The Reference Court enhanced the market value of the land to Rs. 2100 per R but refused to enhance compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements. The appellant appealed against the refusal. The High Court considered the evidence, including the SLAO's award which had valued fruit bearing trees at Rs. 1,02,000 and a well at Rs. 20,000. The High Court held that the Reference Court erred in not granting compensation for trees and improvements. It enhanced the compensation for fruit bearing trees to Rs. 1,02,000 and for the well to Rs. 20,000, in addition to the market value of the land. The appeal was partly allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the enhanced compensation with statutory benefits.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation for Fruit Bearing Trees - Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The appellant-claimant sought enhancement of compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements on acquired land - The Reference Court rejected the claim for trees and improvements - The High Court held that the claimant is entitled to compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements as per the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and further enhanced the compensation for trees and well based on evidence - Held that the claimant is entitled to additional compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements (Paras 5-10).
B) Land Acquisition - Market Value Determination - Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Reference Court enhanced the market value of land from Rs. 494 per R to Rs. 2100 per R - The High Court upheld this enhancement as just and reasonable - Held that the market value determined by the Reference Court is appropriate (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court erred in not granting compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements (well) on the acquired land, and whether the market value of the land was correctly determined.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the Reference Court is modified. The appellant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 1,02,000 for fruit bearing trees and Rs. 20,000 for the well, in addition to the market value of the land. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced compensation with statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Market Value
- Fruit Bearing Trees
- Improvements
- Section 18 Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 8
First Appeal No. 280 of 2019
Mr. D. A. Bide h/f. Mr. V. B. Wayal for Appellant, Mr. P. M. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
The State of Maharashtra, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Executive Engineer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court in a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the quantum of compensation.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought enhancement of compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements on the acquired land.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the Reference Court's refusal to enhance compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements.
Previous Decisions
The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 494 per R for land, and also awarded compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements. The Reference Court enhanced the market value of land to Rs. 2100 per R but refused to enhance compensation for trees and improvements.
Issues
Whether the Reference Court erred in not granting compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements on the acquired land.
Whether the market value of the land was correctly determined by the Reference Court.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the Reference Court wrongly rejected the claim for compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements despite evidence on record.
The respondents supported the Reference Court's decision, contending that the compensation for trees and improvements was already included in the market value of the land.
Ratio Decidendi
In land acquisition cases, compensation for fruit bearing trees and improvements must be separately assessed and awarded if evidence supports their existence and value. The market value of land does not automatically include the value of standing trees and structures like wells.
Judgment Excerpts
The instant appeal calls-in-question the quantum of compensation amount determined by the learned Reference Court, Aurangabad, in LAR No. 136 of 2006 filed by the appellant-original claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The learned Reference Court dealt with the Reference petition of 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.
The claim of appellant - claimant for enhancement of compensation for fruit bearing trees, improvement etc. was rejected by the learned Reference Court.
Procedural History
The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant filed a Reference under Section 18, which was partly allowed by the Reference Court. The appellant then filed the present first appeal before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), Section 11, Section 18
