Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajkumar Bhikamchand Kela, a minor represented by his mother, filed an appeal against the judgment and award dated 26.6.1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, in Land Acquisition Case No. 33A of 1983. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land for a public purpose, wherein the claimant sought compensation for 210 orange trees allegedly standing in the severed portion of the land. The claimant argued that these trees had dried up because the well, which was situated in the acquired portion and used for irrigation, could no longer be accessed. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.175 per tree, relying on the report of D.W.1 Sambhaji, an expert witness. The appellant contended that the evidence of P.W.1 Bhikamchand, which was almost unchallenged, showed a higher yield and claimed at least Rs.1,000 per tree. The respondent State supported the impugned award, arguing that the expert report was duly proved. The High Court, after considering the evidence and submissions, expressed serious doubt about the claim. It noted that compensation for the acquired land including the well had already been awarded, and nothing prevented the claimant from creating an alternative source of water in the severed portion. The court held that the claimant failed to prove that the trees were damaged due to the acquisition or that he could not irrigate them otherwise. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and award were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation for Trees - Severed Land - Claimant sought compensation for 210 orange trees in severed portion alleging they dried up due to loss of irrigation from well in acquired land - Court held that once compensation for the acquired land including the well was paid, the claimant could not claim damages for trees in severed portion without proving actual loss or inability to create alternative irrigation - Held that the burden was on the claimant to prove that the trees were damaged due to acquisition and that the Reference Court's award of Rs.175 per tree was not justified on the evidence (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for 210 orange trees in the severed portion of land on the ground that the well in the acquired portion could no longer be used for irrigation.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.6.1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Yavatmal, in Land Acquisition Case No. 33A of 1983 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation for Trees
- Severed Land
- Burden of Proof
- Expert Evidence
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 153
First Appeal No. 52 of 1992
Mr. A.V. Bhide for the Appellant, Mr. A.S. Sonare, AGP for the Respondent
Rajkumar Bhikamchand Kela, minor by guardian mother Kamlabai w/o Bhikamchand Kela
State of Maharashtra, Through Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (Jamod), District Buldana
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and award in land acquisition reference case seeking enhanced compensation for orange trees.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought compensation for 210 orange trees at the rate of Rs.1,000 per tree.
Filing Reason
Claimant was aggrieved by the Reference Court's award of Rs.175 per tree for 210 orange trees, which he claimed had dried up due to acquisition of the well used for irrigation.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court (Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Yavatmal) in Land Acquisition Case No. 33A of 1983 awarded compensation at Rs.175 per tree for 210 orange trees.
Issues
Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for 210 orange trees in the severed portion on the ground that the well in the acquired portion could no longer be used for irrigation.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that 210 orange trees dried up because the well in the acquired portion was no longer available for irrigation, and the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 Bhikamchand showed higher yield, warranting compensation at Rs.1,000 per tree.
Respondent argued that the expert report of D.W.1 Sambhaji (Ex.47) was duly proved and there was no evidence to reject it, supporting the award of Rs.175 per tree.
Ratio Decidendi
Once compensation for the acquired land including the well has been awarded, the claimant cannot claim damages for trees in the severed portion merely because the well is no longer available for irrigation, unless he proves actual loss or inability to create an alternative source of water. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to show that the trees were damaged due to the acquisition.
Judgment Excerpts
Ultimately, it has to be borne in mind that the compensation for the acquired piece of land including the well has been awarded and nothing prevented the claimant from having a source of water in the severed piece of land where 210 orange trees, according to him, were standing.
Once the State Government has awarded compensation for acquisition of well also it is very difficult for this Court to accept the claim for compensation for the trees in the severed portion.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired land including a well. The claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming additional compensation for 210 orange trees in the severed portion. The Reference Court (Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Yavatmal) in Land Acquisition Case No. 33A of 1983 awarded Rs.175 per tree. Aggrieved, the claimant filed First Appeal No. 52 of 1992 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
