High Court
Legal Reasoning
First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.219 OF 2000Nanabhau Jangalu Pawar,Since deceased, through L.Rs.1/1)Shirish Nanabhau Pawar,Age 52 years, Occu. Agri.R/o Maharana Pratap Co-operative Society, Near Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon1/2)Charudatta Nanabhau Pawar,Since deceased, through L.Rs.1/2A)Sandhya Charudda Pawar,Age 44 years, Occu. Household1/2B)Krishna Charudda Pawar,Age 23 years, Occu. Education1/2C)Ram Charudatta Pawar,Age 16 years, Occu. Education,through legal guardian Sandhya Charudda PawarAll R/o Maharana Pratap Co-operative Society, Near Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon1/3)Uday Nanabhau Pawar,Age 46 years, Occu. Agri.R/o Maharana Pratap Co-operative Society, Near Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon…APPELLANTS First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 2 ::VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra,(Notice to be served on Govt. Pleader, high Court of Judicatureof Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)…RESPONDENT.......Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/bMr. A.R. Syed, Advocate for appellants Dr. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for respondent....…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2004 WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.3743 OF 2003 WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.5744 OF 2018The State of Maharashtra,through Collector, Jalgaon…APPELLANTVERSUSShri Nanabhau Jangalu PawarSince deceased, through L.Rs.1/1)Shirish Nanabhau Pawar,Age 52 years, Occu. Agri.R/o Maharana Pratap Co-operative Society, Near Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon1/2)Charudatta Nanabhau Pawar,Since deceased, through L.Rs.1/2A)Sandhya Charudda Pawar,Age 44 years, Occu. Household1/2B)Krishna Charudda Pawar, First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 3 ::Age 23 years, Occu. Education1/2C)Ram Charudatta Pawar,Age 16 years, Occu. Education,through legal guardian Sandhya Charudda PawarAll R/o Maharana Pratap Co-operative Society, Near Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon1/3)Uday Nanabhau Pawar,Age 46 years, Occu. Agri.R/o Maharana Pratap Co-operative Society, Near Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon,Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon…APPELLANTSVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra,(Notice to be served on Govt. Pleader, high Court of Judicatureof Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)…RESPONDENTS.......Dr. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for appellant Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/bMr. A.R. Syed, Advocate for respondents....... CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.Date of reserving judgment : 4th December, 2024 Date of pronouncing judgment : 18th December, 2024 JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) : First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 4 ::Both these appeals under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act of 1894’) are taken uptogether for decision since the challenge therein is to one andthe same judgment and award passed in Land AcquisitionReference (L.A.R.), No.282/2000. First Appeal (No.219/2000) has been filed by theoriginal land owner/ claimant for enhancement ofcompensation. Whereas the Appeal, (No.1239/2004) hasbeen preferred by the State on the ground of the amountawarded by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.282/2000 beingexcessive and exorbitant and therefore, urged for reductiontherein.FACTS :2.Agricultural land, bearing Gut No.4, admeasuring 1Hector 25 R with 20 R Pot Kharab was acquired for minorirrigation tank – Sarve Khajole. Notification under Section 4 ofthe Act of 1894 was published on 21/8/1997. The LandAcquisition Officer passed the award on 31/3/1999. Thepossession of the land has admittedly been taken over beforepublication of the notification under Section 4. First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 5 ::3.The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award,offering compensation as under : (1)Value of the land :-Rs. 5,90,448/-(2)Value of the trees/ fruitbearing & otherwise :- Rs.21,26,166/-(3)Solatium :-Rs. 8,14,982/-(4)Amount of additionalcomponent (from 31/10/1997to 31/3/1999):-Rs.4,61,823/----------------------------Total:-Rs.39,93,419/- The Reference Court enhanced the same toRs.61,69,706/- (inclusive of the amount offered by the LandAcquisition Officer) with 30% solatium thereon besides 12% asadditional component in terms of the relevant provisions of theAct of 1894.4.Heard. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant/original land owner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’)would submit that the Reference Court committed a mistake bynot granting compensation towards price of the land.According to him, when the Land Acquisition Officer has First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 6 ::granted compensation on two counts, namely price of the landand on account of the trees and fruit bearing trees separately,it was mandatory on the part of the Reference Court to awardthe compensation towards market price of the land. He wouldfurther submit that, an expert/ valuer (Horticulturist) had paidvisit to the land on 25/5/1996. He took into consideration thenumber of trees standing on the land. He then obtained therates of various fruits from A.P.M.C., Jalgaon and then arrivedat a certain figure i.e. Rs. 1,61,65,959/-. He would furthersubmit that, the Reference Court ought not to have madededuction of 40% of the estimated compensation worked outby the expert. The expert did grace the dock and proved hisreport. According to learned Senior Advocate, on behalf of therespondent – State, none of the officials except anHorticulturist was examined. Our attention was drawn to hiscross-examination to submit that he took into consideration thenumber of trees those were noticed and recorded in jointmeasurement map. According to learned Senior Advocate,there was no effective cross-examination of the appellant –land owner and the witnesses examined by him. According tohim, some other trees were also noticed by the Government First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 7 ::Horticulturist who had paid visit to the land. Some of the treeswere under water. Many of them were even damaged.According to learned Senior Advocate, the Reference Courtought to have granted the compensation in toto i.e. the figurethat was claimed by the appellant. In support of hiscontentions, he relied on the following authorities : (1)The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. Vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil& ors. [ MANU/SC/0856/2019 ](2)Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Collector, LandAcquisition, Tehsil &District Doda [ 2005 AIR (SC) 1136 ](3)Navanath & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra200 AIR (SCW) 3611(4)Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The SpecialLand Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon [ 2012 AIR (SC) 481 ](5)Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) by L.Rs. & ors. Vs.State of Maharashtra [ 2011 AIR SCW 5749 ]5.The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand,submit that, the Horticulturist examined on behalf of theappellant claimed to have paid visit to the land on 25/5/1996i.e. long before Section 4 notification was published. Thepossession of the land was taken over on 26/12/1996. Theland was jointly measured in the presence of the appellant. First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 8 ::That time he did not raise any objection about the number andvariety of the trees. According to her, even in response to thenotice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, the appellant did notplace before the Land Acquisition Officer the so called reportprepared by the valuer. In short, according to her, the valuer’sreport is a fabricated or got up document so as to create anevidence. She would further submit that, in view of the FullBench judgment of this Court in case of State of MaharashtraVs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [ (2016) 4 ALLMR 513 ], theReference Court ought to have awarded interest from the dateof award since possession of the land was taken beforepublication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of1894. According to her, the amount of compensation ought tohave been the one which has been quantified by theGovernment Horticulturist. She, therefore, urged for allowingthe State’s Appeal.6.We have considered the submissions advanced.Perused the impugned judgment and award. Also perused theevidence adduced by both the sides before the ReferenceCourt. First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 9 ::7.As stated above, the Land Acquisition Officer hadgranted compensation separately, one for the land and otherfor the trees and fruit bearing trees. The Reference Courtconsidered the Valuer’s evidence and his report relied on bythe appellant and granted compensation at the rate of 60%thereof. The Reference Court relied on the judgment of theApex Court in case of Guru Charan Singh Vs. State ofHaryana (AIR 1996 SC 106) for not granting the compensationseparately or value the land on the basis of land itself withthings attached thereto namely the trees/ fruit bearing trees.He, however, took into consideration the number of trees ashave been recorded in joint measurement.8.Let us advert to the evidence on record to findwhether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court ison higher or lower side.9.The certain dates as stated above, are reiteratedas below :-Date of notification under Section 4:21/8/1997 First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 10 ::Date of award:31/3/1999Date of taking possession of the land:26/12/199610.The land admeasuring 1 Hector 45 R + 24 R PotKharab was acquired for minor irrigation tank – Sarve Khajole.The Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation asunder : (1)Value of the land :-Rs. 5,90,448/-(2)Value of the trees/ fruitbearing & otherwise :- Rs.21,26,166/-(3)Solatium :-Rs. 8,14,982/-(4)Amount of additionalcomponent (from 31/10/1997to 31/3/1999):-Rs.4,61,823/----------------------------Total:-Rs.39,93,419/-11.The appellant produced 7/12 extract for therelevant years as well, wherein number of certain trees havebeen recorded. Although the 7/12 extract carries presumptionof correctness as to entries therein, the same is not conclusiveproof. In the case in hand, the authorities had paid visit to the First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 11 ::land and counted the trees. For ready reference, a chart givenby the appellant himself is reproduced below :गट नन. 4 शशत-जममीनमीत पपाणमी शशिरलश शदिनपानं 29/8/19967/12 चयपा उतपा-यपाविरमील Exh.9 and10सन 1995-96सन 1996-97सन 1997/98JointMeasurement(J.M.) सनययक ममजणमीतमीलझपाडश शदि.3/5/1997 (सनययक ममजणमीपपाण्यपात ंशलमी) J.M.Exh.54 Aशपासनमपान्यहहॉटमींल्चिर वहहललूअिरिरशवनद्र धन:शपाम चचौधिरमीExh.40शदि.25/5/1996झपाडशशपासनपाचश हहॉटर्ंल्चिरइनस्पशकटिर डशपययटमीहहॉटर्ंल्चिरइनस्पशकटिरपमी.डमी.भस्मशExh.54 शदि.3/2/1998(झपाडमी पपाण्यपातहमतमी)Award Exh.50शदि.31/3/1999झपाडश िरशफिरन्स ंमटरससशनयिरशडवहमीजन,जळगपावExh.53 शदि.25/4/2000(शनंपाल शदिनपानं)झपाडशClaimantचमी मपागणमीझपाडशExh. 13नपािरळ 70सपाग जयनश 500सपागन नशवन 350सससम 02जपानभलळ 03आनबश 200गपाविरपानमी आनबश 02बमिरमी 20शननबल 250शनलशगिरमी 3000शवहमीिरमी 02इलश. ममटपािर पनप 02मशमीन घिर 01गयिरपानचपा पपाणमी शपण्यपाचपा टटं (हपाळ) 01ंशंतमी ंनदिपा 2000(घपायपपात)P.V.C. Pipe 1000फयटबपागयतमी शशतजममीन (1 हशकटिर 25 आिर. + 20. आिर. पमटखिरपाब)नपािरळ ममठमी 033सपाग 202शशसम 02----आबश लहपान 041आनबश ममठमी 112--सलनबमणमी ममठमी 178सलनबमणमी लहपान 112डपाळळींब 009शनलगमीिरमी 283नपािरळ 70सपाग वहशिरमी गयड 500सपाग ॲवहिरशज 350शशसम 02जपानभलळ 03आनबश गयड 200आनबश लमंल (गपाविरपान) 02बमिरमी 20सलनबल गयड 178शनलगमीिरमी वहशिरमी गयड 819शनलगमीिरमी वहशिरमी गयड 593शनलगगिरमी ॲवहिरशज 1100शनलगमीिरमी शबलम ॲवहिरशज 488डपाळळींब 09----ंशंतमी (घपायपपात) 2000P.V.C. Pipe line 3000िरशननग फयटइलश.ममटपािर पनप 5 एच.पमी.नपािरपाळ गयड 25नपािरळ गयड 08--डपाळळींब 09सलनबल 90 गयडसलनबल 60 गयडसलनबल 28 ॲवहिरशज आनबश गयड 70आनबश ॲवहिरशज 14आनबश गयड 5/1आनबश 18आनबश 30आनबश ॲवहिरशज 11आनबश (लमंल) ॲवहिरशज 02वन परिरकशत्र ूअसधंपािरमी चपाळमीसगपाव Exh.54Bशनलगमीिरमी 400 झपाडपानचपा रिरपमटरExh.53 प्रमपाणश सिरंपािरमी वंकीलपाननमी दिपाखल ंशलमी आहश. नपािरळ 33डपाळळींब 09ममठमी सलनबमणमी 178लहपान सलनबमणमी 016आनबश गयड 41आनबश 112 ममठमी शनलगमीिरमी 283शशसम 002(जश. एम.प्रमपाणश 202 सपागपाचमी झपाडश समडलन शदिलमी)डपाळळींब 09सलनबल 178 ममठशसलनबल 016 लहपान नपािरळ 33आनबश ममठमी 112आनबश लहपान 041शनलगमीिरमी 283+112शशसम 02(जजममट) Dt.25/4/2000 सपाग 202डपाळळींब 09सलनबल 250आनबश 200गपाविरपानमी आनबश 02नपािरळ 70बमिरमी 20जपानभलळ 03शशसम 02शनलगमीिरमी 3000सपाग जलनश 500सपाग नवश 350घपायपपात (ंशतंकी) 2000स्टमूअिर वहॉटिर टटं 1जममीन बपागयत शवहमीिरमी 2इलश. ममटपािर पनप2P.V.C. PipeLine 3000 फयट 6404(Trees)97263363876749886406 First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 12 ::शपासंकीय मपान्यतपा ूअसलशलश हहॉटर्ंल्चिर वहहल्ययूअिरशमी. िरशवनद्र घन:शपाम चचौधिरमी यपाननमी दिशरशवलशलमी झपाडपानचमीशंनमत रपयश (Exh.40) शदिनपानं 25/5/1996Exh.43, 44 and 46शपासनपाचश हहॉटर्ंल्चिर इनस्पशकटिर डशपययटमीहहॉटर्ंल्चिर इनस्पशकटिर शमी. पमी.डमी. भस्मश यपाननमीदिशरशवलशलमी झपाडपानचमी शंनमत रपयश (Exh.52)शदिनपानं 3/2/1998Exh.54स्पशशल लटड ूअशं. ऑशफसिर, जळगपाव यपाननमी ॲवपाडर(Exh.50) मध्यश शदिलशलमी झपाडपानचमी नयंसपान भिरपपााईशंनमत.िरशफिरन्स ंमटर (समी.जश.एस.डमी.जळगपाव) यपाननमी शदिलशलमीझपाडपानचमी नयंसपान भिरपपााई शंनमत रपयश Exh.58(शनंपालपत्र)Dt.25/4/2000कलशमनट (ॲपशलनट) चमी मपागणमीExh.13 and Exh.17(पपाहणश)Statement of Sec.9 प्रमपाणशझपाडशप्रशतझपाडमयल्यपानंनExh.43एंलणमयल्यपानंनिरकंमझपाडशप्रशतझपाडमयल्यपानंनExh.43एंलणमयल्यपानंनिरकंमझपाडशप्रशतझपाडमयल्यपानंनExh.43एंलणमयल्यपानंनिरकंमझपाडशप्रशतझपाडमयल्यपानंनExh.43एंलण मयल्यपानंनिरकंमझपाडशप्रशतझपाडमयल्यपानंनExh.439 डपाळळींब वहशिरमी गयड178 सलनबल वहशिरमी गयड72 सलनबल गयड.70 नपािरळ200 आनबश2 लमंल(गपाविरपाण) आनबश20 बमिरमी3 जपानभलळ2000 घपायपपात14719/-13686/-10111/-6613/-15605/-33979/-10368/-34277/-241/-1,32,47924,36,10872,79,9204,67,11031,21,00067,95820,73,3601,02,8314,82,0006 डपाळळींब90 सलनबल गयड60 सलनबल गयड28 सलबल ॲवहिरशज25 नपािरळ गयड8 नपािरळ गयड70 आनबश गयड14 आनबश ॲवहिरशज5 आनबश गयड1 आनबश गयड 30 आनबश ॲवहिरशज11 आनबश ॲवहिरशज2 आनबश गपाविरपाणमी(लमंल)400 शनलगमीिरमीझपाडपानचपाRs.Total1585446+143041330158596 डपाळळींब ममठमी178 शननबमणमी ममठमी16 शननबमलमी लहपानमी33 नपािरळ ममठमी41 आनबश लहपान112 आनबश ममठश283 शनलगमीिरमी2 शशसम13,90,155+05,40,7206 डपाळळींब178 सलनबल ममठमी16सलनबल लहपान33 नपािरळ112 आनबश ममठश41 आनबश लहपान283 शनलगमीिरमीगयड112 शनलगमीिरमी202 सपाग2 शशसम8830/-8130/-6666/-4003/-20387/-6000/-5044/-1305/-1000/-3626/-52980/-14,52,480/-1,66,056/-1,32,099/-22,83,344/-2,83,344/-14,27,452/-1,52,685/-20,2000/-7266/-9 डपाळळींबसलनबल 250आनबश 200गपाविरपानमी आनबश 2नपािरळ 70बमिरमी 20जपानभलळ 03शशसम 02शनलगमीिरमी 3000सपाग जयनश 500सपाग नवश 350घपायपपात ंशतंकी 2000स्टमूअिर वहॉटिर टटं 1मशमीन घिर 1शवहमीिर 2इलश.ममीटिर पनप 2पमी.वहमी.समी.पपााईप लपााईन3000 फयटबपागपायत जशमनमीचमी शंनमतदििरवरर् शमळणपािरश उत्पन्न 5 लपाख र.चश नयंसपान झपालश40,000/-1,00,000/-2,40,000/-25,000/-1,50,000/-60,000/-1,05,000/-35,000/-2500/-30,000/-30,000/-3000/-15,000/-75,000/-3,00,000/-3000/-20,000/-9,00,000/-शदि.26/8/96पपासलन शशवट िरकंमहपातमी पडश पपावशतमएंलण फळझपाडपानचश मयल्यपानंन Exh.4377,44,830Exh.54 Bशंनमत शदिलशलमी नपाहमी. वन परिरकशत्र ूअसधंपािरमी, चपाळमीसगपावन, सज. जळगपाव यपाननमी पपाठशवलशलपा रिरपमटर Exh.53 प्रमपाणश सिरंपािरमी वंकीलपाननमी दिपाखल ंश लपा आहश.Total Rs.19,30,875Total Rs.61,59,706/-इतिर फळझपाडपानवयशतरिरक झपाडपानचश मयल्यपानंनExh.45लटड आकवश. ऑफकीसिर –यपाननमी Award मध्यश – वजपा (deducted)शदिलशलमी िरकंम रपयश 2857020 ------------------ 3302686It is admitted in Govt. Appeal No.1239/2004 on page No.2 First Para List Line No.3500 सपाग वहशिरमी गयड350 सपाग ॲवहिरशज816 शनलगमीिरमी593 शनलगमीिरमी गयड1100 शनलगमीिरमी ॲवहिरशज488 शनलगमीिरमी शबलम ॲवहश.2 शशसमएंलण झपाडपानचशमयल्यपानंन420420029429402460446178147033046551466026622216165959Total Rs.Exh.432,39,10,789Total Rs.12,16,85000/-12.The evidence of Shri Ravindra Chaudhari, whoclaimed to have been a Government approved HorticulturistValuer, suggests that, he paid visit to the land on 25/5/1996.He testified that, he counted the trees in the land in thepresence of Village Sarpanch, some other villagers and two First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 13 ::panchas also. He further testified that, he obtained thevaluation/ price of the fruits from A.P.M.C., Jalgaon andprepared his report vide Exhs.43/44/46. According to him, thetotal valuation of the fruit bearing trees and other trees liketeak, Nilgiri etc. would come to Rs.2,39,10,789/-.13.The question is, whether the evidence of RavindraChaudhari is cogent and reliable one. Admittedly, he claimedto have paid visit to the land on 25/5/1996 i.e. little over a yearbefore notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 waspublished. From the pleadings, it appears that, possession ofthe land was taken over on 26/12/1996 i.e. before the Section4 notification. The appellant was served with a notice underSection 9 of the Act of 1894. Sub-section (2) of Section 9reads thus :“(2)Such notice shall state the particulars of theland so needed, and shall require all personsinterested in the land to appear personally or byagent before the Collector at a time and placetherein mentioned (such time not being earlier thanfifteen days after the date of publication of thenotice), and to state the nature of their respectiveinterests in the land and the amount and particularsof their claims to compensation for such interests,and their objections (if any) to the measurementsmade under Section 8. The Collector may in any First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 14 ::case require such statement to be made in writingand signed by the party or his agent.”14.In response to this notice, the appellant claims tohave made his submissions. It is also not in dispute that, inview of Section 8 of the Act of 1894, joint measurement of theland took place in the presence of the appellant. On both thetimes, i.e. at the time of joint measurement, he did not raiseany objection regarding the number of trees recorded in thejoint measurement map being lesser in number than actualone. When the Valuer was said to have paid visit to the landon 25/6/1996, necessarily, the appellant was armed with hisreport. We do not come across a passing reference to the factof the Valuer having paid visit and quantified the compensationclaimed by the appellant, in his response to Section 9 notificeand even therebefore when he was in the know that his landwas being acquired and possession whereof had already beengiven by him with negotiations. According to us, the Valuer’sreport relied on by the appellant saw the light of the day for thefirst time when he examined him as his witness. Although therules of pleadings are not applicable strictly, after passing ofthe award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant, in his First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 15 ::reference to be submitted to the Land Acquisition Officer forbeing referred to the Court, did not make any whisper aboutthe valuation report. It was specifically suggested by theGovernment Pleader to the valuer in his cross-examinationthat the report was suitably prepared in his office and given tothe appellant to produce in evidence. In this factual backdrop,we find the valuer’s report relied on by the appellant to be agot-up document. It needs to be mentioned here that theappellant in his reference claimed his occupation asagriculture. He further contended that, it was his only sourceof income. During cross-examination, however, he admittedthat he was a practicing Advocate. Being an Advocateappearing before the Court of law, it was expected of him toproduce the valuer’s report which was said to have been madein June 1996 itself, before all the authorities concerned andfirst in point itself. Without reiterating the same, we found thevaluer’s report saw the light of the day while evidence wasadduced before the Court. We, therefore, do not propose torely on the valuer’s report. First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 16 ::15.We are conscious of the fact and the law relied onby the learned Advocate in case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra(supra) that the land owner is not expected to quantify theexpected amount of compensation in his reference submittedto the Land Acquisition Officer for being referred to the Courtfor determination of compensation. When Section 9(2) of theAct gives an opportunity to the land owner, whose land is beingacquired at least to approximately estimate the amount ofcompensation and in the case in hand, the opportunity waseven availed by the appellant, still he did not make referenceto the valuer’s report.16.In the chart mentioned hereinabove, the number oftrees found on the land during joint measurement have beenspecifically reflected. The respondent State examined itsDeputy Horticultural Inspector. He paid visit to the land inFebruary 1998. He gave his report Exh.54-B. The appellantwas present on both the occasions i.e. during jointmeasurement and the visit made by the GovernmentHorticulturist (D.W.1 Shri P.D. Bhasme). We find him to haveno reason to take side. He testified that, pursuant to the letter First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 17 ::issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, dated14/11/1997 for valuation of the fruit bearing trees in theacquired land, he inspected the trees in the land Gut No.4 on3/2/1998. Both, the Assistant Engineer of the acquiringauthority and the appellant were present. He placed on recordhis report. He further testified that he obtained market price ofthe fruits from A.P.M.C., Jalgaon for the year 1997. Accordingto him, he followed Miram’s Table method. He drew the futureage of the trees and drawn the valuation. According to him,the total valuation of the fruit bearing trees is to the tune ofRs.13,90,155/-.17.During his cross-examination, he testified that hecounted the trees on the basis of joint measurement map.According to him, there may be variance in the number of treesat the time of notification under section 4 or at the time of jointmeasurement. He did the exercise throughout the day.According to him, that there were Jujabe trees, locally calledas bartree, missing in the joint measurement. Those were 30to 35 in number. Those were early bearing trees. He went onto state that, there were no more trees of mango and lemon First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 18 ::than shown in the joint measurement map. He went on tostate that, there were no other trees more than the reflected inhis valuation report (Exh.54). According to him, there were 33coconut trees covered in the water. According to him, thoughwater was there, the trees were visible. He went on to statethat, some of the trees were in bad condition because ofexistence of water. He specifically denied to have not takeninto consideration other trees existing in the land Gut No.4when he paid visit to the land. It is true that the learned A.G.P.placed on record a report of the Forest Department indicatingexistence of 400 Nilgiri trees. Wherefrom he got the same andon the basis of what the said document was placed on recordis not known. Still we presume that there were 400 Nilgiritrees, which were in fact not there during joint measurementand visit paid by Shri Bhasme. At the cost of repetition, it isobserved as to how could the Forest official placed on record adocument indicating existence of 400 Nilgiri trees in the landGut No.4, since he being the Government official, representingthe respondent – State, we presume existence of those treesfor calculation of compensation to be awarded to the appellant.All the 400 trees were not of same size, in height, First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 19 ::circumference etc. We propose to add a sum of Rs.5 Lakhstowards compensation on account of presumed existence ofNilgiri trees. This way the valuation made by the GovernmentHorticulturist comes to Rs.18,90,155/-. We round it off toRs.20 Lakhs and give the appellant compensation double ofthe valuation thus worked out. As such, in our view, theappellant would be entitled for Rs.40 Lakhs towardscompensation on account of fruit bearing and other trees.Value of the land :18.Since the Land Acquisition Officer offeredcompensation separately towards value of the land, we areinclined to consider the appellant’s claim on that count. Weshould not be taken to mean that we are deviating from thedictum of the Apex Court in case of Gurucharan Singh (A.I.R.1996 SC 106). In the authorities relied on by the learnedSenior Advocate for the appellant, namely Chindha Fakira Patiland Hans Raj Sharma, wherein compensation was awardedtowards price of the land besides trees standing thereon.19.According to the appellant, his land was irrigatedland. He relied on a sale exemplar (Exh.19). On the map First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 20 ::(Exh.14), the land Gut No.78 appears to be far away from theacquired land. Moreover, the purchaser appears to have paidsomewhat more consideration since the land purchased abutshis ancestral land. We, therefore, consider the price ofunirrigated land to be Rs.60,000/- per acre. Meaning thereby,Rs.1,50,000/- per hector. The appellant’s land being irrigatedone, we grant him double thereof i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- per hector.This way the amount of compensation on account of price ofthe acquired land would be Rs.3,00,000/- (for 1 Hector) +Rs.1,20,000/- (for 1 acre) + Rs.10,000/- (for 5 gunthas) +Rs.30,000/- ( Pot Kharab land) = Rs.4,40,000/-.20.In this view of the matter, according to us, theappellant would be entitled to total compensation ofRs.44,40,000/- i.e. Rs.40,00,000/- towards trees and fruitbearing trees + 4,40,000/- towards price of the land = TotalRs.44,40,000/- (Rupees forty four lakhs forty thousand only).The Reference Court has awarded the compensation to thetune of Rs.61,59,706/-. Interference with the impugned awardis, therefore, warranted, replacing the said figure by the figureof Rs.44,40,000/-. First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 21 ::21.Moreover, the interest on the amount ofcompensation be paid from the date of the award and not fromthe date of taking possession of the land since possession wastaken over before publication of notice under Section 4. Weplace reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in caseof State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari.22.With this, both the appeals stand disposed of interms of the following order : O R D E R(i)First Appeal No.219/2000 is dismissed.(ii)First Appeal No.1239/2004 is partly allowed. The figureRs.61,59,706/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs fifty nine thousandseven hundred and six) appearing in clause (2) of theimpugned award is replaced with the figure Rs.44,40,000/-(Rupees forty four lakhs forty thousand).(iii)The interest as has been directed to be paid in terms ofclause (6) of the impugned award be paid from the date of theaward. First Appeal No.219/2000 withFirst Appeal No.1239/2004:: 22 ::(iv)Rest of the terms of the impugned award to standunaltered.(v)The entire amount of compensation is said to have beendeposited with this Court. The original land owner has passedaway. His legal representatives have been brought on record.The amount of compensation in terms of the modified awardbe paid to the legal representative of the original land owner onproduction of succession certificate by them. The amount bepaid with accrued interest till the date of payment. Thebalance amount with accrued interest be paid back to the StateGovernment. (vi)In view of disposal of the First Appeals, all pending CivilApplications are disposed of.(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-