1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.280 OF 1994 APPELLANTS: 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Collector, Yeotmal, Distt. Yeotmal 3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Painganga Prakalpa Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal VERSUS RESPONDENT: Murlidhar s/o Keshaorao Mukkawar, aged about 57 years, occupation : cultivator, r/o Digras Tah Digras Dist. Yeotmal =================================================== Smt. A.R. Taywade, AGP for appellants Shri A.P. Tathod, advocate for respondent =================================================== WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.387 OF 1994 APPELLANT: Murlidhar s/o Keshavrao Mukkewar, aged about 57 years, occupation : cultivator, resident of Digras, Tq. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1] The State of Maharashtra, 2] The Collector, Yavatmal District Yavatmal 3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Painganga Prakalpa, Pusad, District : Yavatmal. =================================================== Shri A.P. Tathod, advocate for appellant Smt. A.R. Taywade, AGP for respondents =================================================== CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 30.6.2010 COMMON JUDGMENT Since common questions arise for consideration in these two appeals, they are heard together and are decided by this common 2 judgment. The state has filed F.A.No. 280/1994 challenging the enhancement of compensation by the reference court and the claimant has filed F.A.No.387/1994 seeking higher compensation. 2] The land of the claimant situated at village Dolari was acquired by the section 4 notification issued on 29.12.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 23.9.1992 and granted compensation to the claimant @ Rs.27500/- for the acquired land and certain amount was granted for the trees and the farm house and Kotha. Being dissatisfied with the grant of meager compensation, the claimant filed a reference application. The reference court decided the reference filed by the claimant as well as one Deokabai by a common judgment dated 12.11.1993. The reference court granted compensation to the claimant @ Rs.1,08,000/- P.H. for the acquired land, Rs.5000/- for each Mosambi Tree and 85% of the amount of the valuation report for the farm house and Kotha. 3] The State has challenged the award granting compensation to the claimant for the aforesaid items. Mrs. Taywade, the learned AGP 3 appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the reference court was not justified in granting compensation @ Rs.1,08,000/- P.H. for the acquired land relying on the judgment passed by the reference court in the case of Vandanabai Atal and Kiranbai Atal. The learned AGP submitted that the said awards have been modified by this court in F.A.No.147/1994 and 146/1994 by the judgment dated 15.12.2009. The learned AGP submitted that Vandanabai Atal and Kiranbai Atal are held to be entitled to compensation only @ Rs.50,000/- P.H. The learned AGP then submitted that the separate compensation could nothave been granted by the reference court for the 11 sweet lime / mosambi trees. The learned AGP relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 106 to substantiate the submission. It is then submitted on behalf of the state that separate compensation could not have been granted for the farm house. Reliance was placed on the judgment reported in AIR 1968 S.C.1201 and (2004) 10 SCC 745 to substantiate her submission. 4] Shri Tathod, the learned counsel for the claimant supported the award passed by the reference court and submitted that at the relevant time the court rightly relied on the awards passed in the cases of 4 Vandanabai Atal and Kiranbai Atal and those awards are now modified by the judgment dated 15.12.2009. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that separate compensation was payable for the trees and the farm house and kotha. The learned counsel for the claimant in fact sought higher compensation for the claimant/ appellant in F.A. No.387/1994. 5] On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in these appeals: 1] Whether the grant of compensation @ Rs.1,08,000/- P.H. was just and proper? 2] Whether separate compensation could have been granted for the trees? 3] Whether separate compensation could have been granted for the farm house and Kotha? To answer the aforesaid points for determination it would be necessary to consider the evidence in this case. The evidence in this case is extremely scanty. No sale deeds have been produced on record to prove the market value of the land. The reference court has mainly relied on the award passed by the reference court in the case of Vandanabai Atal and Kiranbai Atal as the reference court had granted compensation @ 5 Rs.90,000/- to those claimants. It is necessary to note that the award passed in Vandanabai Atal and Kiranbai Atal's case was challenged by the State before this court by filing First Appeal no.147/1994 and 146/1994. These appeals were heard along with First Appeal No.700/1993 and by the judgment dated 15.12.2009 the Division Bench of this court had modified the judgment passed by the reference court in those cases and held that Vandanabai Atal and Kiranbai Atal were entitled to compensation only @ Rs.50,000/- P.H. Since the section 4 notification in that case was issued on 6.3.1986 and section 4 notification in this case was issued on 29.12.1988 it would be just and proper to grant compensation to the claimant in this case @ Rs.60000/- P.H. and there is a gap of about 2 years in issuance of the two notifications, hence for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 15.12.2009 and for the aforesaid reasons the claimant would be entitled to grant of compensation for the land, @ Rs.60,000/- P.H. 6] The reference court was not justified in granting separate compensation for the trees as it is well settled that separate compensation cannot be granted for trees and land. It would be useful to 6 refer to the judgments reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 106 and AIR 2002 SC 1423 in this regard. 7] The claimant would also not be entitled to separate compensation for the farm house and Kotha as it is well settled that separate compensation cannot be granted for the land and the building constructed thereon and both the land and the buildings have to be considered as one unit. The learned AGP has rightly relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1968 S.C. Page 1201 and 2004 (10) S.C.C. 745 in this regard. 8] Hence First Appeal No.387/1994 filed by the claimant is dismissed. First Appeal No.280/1994 filed by the State of Maharashtra is partly allowed. The award passed by the reference court on 12.11.1993 is hereby modified. The claimant would be entitled to grant of compensation only @ Rs.60,000/- P.H. for the acquired land along with statutory benefits. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.