Land Acquisition: Bombay High Court Grants Additional Compensation To Farmer For Mango Trees, Well

While hearing the case for the first time, the reference court had considered the location as well as the trees and the well and enhanced the compensation awarded by the acquisition officer. However, after hearing the matter for the second time, it discarded the evidence given the first time around and reduced the compensation. It also did not award compensation for the well and trees.

"Admittedly, in view of findings recorded by the land acquisition officer, there is reference of trees as well as of well. The said land is situated 2.5 k.m. away from Washim-Risod road and 2.5 k.m. away from the main road. There is educational facility, weekly market and water facility from well as well as from river. There is Post, Bank, Schools, Electric Line available in the village," Justice M. S. Jawalkar said in her order.

The court fixed the market price of the land as Rs 1,30,000 per hectare and held that the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation on this basis. The court also held that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs 32,009 for the mango trees and Rs 48,244 for the well.

The Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) acquired over 2.7 hectares of the appellant's land for a dam project and awarded Rs 1,45,314 as compensation. The appellants approached the reference court for enhancement of compensation. The reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,28,800. It also awarded Rs 80,253 for the trees and well on the land.

The land acquisition officer challenged this judgement before the High Court. The High Court sent the matter back to the reference court with directions to implead the authority as a respondent. Thereafter, reference court reduced the enhancement in compensation to Rs. 67,000. The appellants challenged this judgement of the reference court before the High Court.

Advocate Sandeep Marathe for the appellants contended that the appellants used to earn Rs. 8000 annually from fruit bearing trees. Reference court committed patent illegality as it did not give an opportunity to the appellants to be heard and produce additional evidence. Further, it committed illegality in observing that there is no evidence about the well as the joint measurement report shows existence of a well on the land. He further contended that the reference court did not properly assess the value of acquired land on the basis of its productivity and non-agricultural potential.

The state government contended that the acquired land is medium quality dry kharip crop and does not have any potential value. It contended that the applicant has not given any evidence to prove the presence of trees on the land. Further, the land acquisition officer has considered the sale instances of the land in the vicinity and awarded adequate and reasonable compensation as per market value.

The court noted that the VIDC after remand did not file any documentary or oral evidence. It filed pursis that it does not want to examine the witnesses.

The court relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Gracinda Braganza in which the Bombay High Court in a similar matter had held that earlier evidence produced by claimants does not get wiped off after the matter is remanded.

The court noted that the referral court discarded the evidence laid down before the remand without any reason. The court further noted that in the award passed by the special land acquisition officer, there is a specific mention of trees and a well on the acquired land and the reference court rightly appreciated this fact prior to the remand. The court said the price fixed as Rs. 1,30,000 by the judgement before remand is perfectly justified.

The reference court had taken into account all aspects including the sale instances for land in the same village prior to the remand. However, after the remand, it discarded the sale instances without recording any reasons for the same, the court noted.

The court stated that the reference court should have considered the evidence given by appellant before remand as no new evidence was given by VIDC after the remand.

"In fact, after remand, in view of the fact that no evidence laid by the respondent no.3, the learned Referral Court ought to have considered the evidence laid by the appellant prior to remand", the court held. Therefore, the court set aside the judgement of the reference court.

Case no. – First Appeal No . 252 of 2020

Case Title – Bhujanga s/o Sarangdhar Sarkate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 465