1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.556 OF 1990 APPELLANT :- Ramvijay Motilal Vidhale (Dead) thr. L.Rs. (a) Smt. Prema wd/o Ramvijay Vidhale, aged 55 years. (b) Amol s/o Ramvijay Vidhale, aged 35 years, Occ. :Agriculturist (c) Pankaj s/o Ramvijay Vidhale, aged 33 years, Occ.: Agriculturist all r/o Chandur Bazar Road,Morshi, District – Amravati. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENT :- State of Maharashtra, through Collector,Amravati. -------------------------------------------------------- [Mr. J.J. Chandurkar Advocate for the appellant] [Ms. Sangeeta Gaikee, AGP for the respondent] -------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI,J. DATED : 23.03.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 30.12.1989 made by Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Land Acquisition Case No. 20 of 1982 (Ramvijay v. State of Maharashtra), inter alia, omitting to grant compensation for 374 orange trees with the average age of 5 years of each tree. 2. Mr.Chandurkar, learned counsel for the 2 appellant, in support of the appeal, argued that the appellant has claimed compensation towards the said 374 orange trees which were located in Survey No. 4/1. He then argued that there is an Award for compensation of 517 orange trees, but the Land Acquisition Officer's Award shows that these 517 orange trees are located in Survey No. 22 and it has nothing to do with Survey No. 4/1, which is also owned by the appellant. In effect, Mr.Chandurkar argued that due to this confusion the Reference Court failed to grant compensation for 374 orange trees whose age is found to be around five years. He, therefore, claimed compensation at the rate of minimum Rs.100/- per tree. 3. Mr.Chandurkar then argued that the finding that the claim made in the Reference Application was less than the one arrived at is wrong and the Reference Court ought to have awarded Rs.3,08,736. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.P. opposed the appeal and argued that compensation is already granted for 517 orange tree in terms of the report of Assistant Director of Cash Crops, and in the light of the said report no further relief could be granted in favour of the appellant. 5. The points that arise for my determination in this appeal are - (i) Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per tree in relation to 374 trees located in Survey No. 4/1? 3 (ii) Whether the finding about less demand for enhanced compensation is factually wrong? My answer to the above points (i) and (ii) are in affirmative. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and Award, and in particular para 34 thereof in relation to the grievance made by learned counsel for the appellant, and I find that the Award speaks about the report of Assistant Director of Cash Crops. In the said Award it is clearly mentioned that the Assistant Director of Cash Crops has reported existence of 517 trees in Survey No. 22, and existence of 844 orange trees in Survey no. 4/1 belonging to the appellant. Not only that, 7/12 extract also shows the figures of these trees existing in those survey numbers. Thus, in my opinion, the State itself has shown the evidence about existence of the aforesaid number of trees. However, out of Survey No. 4/1, Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.450/- per tree in relation to only 470 trees but omitted to award any compensation for the remaining 374 trees. Reading of the judgment of the Reference Court does not show any reason why there is such omission. Be that as it may. Since it is amply established from the record that in Survey No.4/1 there were 374 trees and since the Reference Court itself has awarded Rs.450/- per tree for the tree of 10 years of age, the remaining 374 trees are of the age of 5 years and in my opinion award of Rs.100/- per tree would be 4 reasonable compensation. The total amount of compensation would come to Rs.374 x 100 = Rs.37,400/-. 7. The finding of the Reference Court that the total price for 517 trees is more than the demand in the claim is not correct. In the light of the demand made in respect of the aforesaid trees, in my opinion, the Reference Court erred in not awarding compensation of Rs.3,08,376/- for 517 trees in Survey No. 22 and it also erred in awarding Rs.2,11,500/- in stead of Rs.2,54,647/- which the Reference Court itself arrived at. As discussed earlier, the Reference Court omitted to award anything for 374 trees, which I hereby award at the rate of Rs.100/- per tree. Thus the impugned judgment and Award will have to be modified accordingly. In the result, I make the following order. 8. First Appeal No. 556 of 1990 is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and Award is modified. Appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,08,736/- in place of Rs.2,91,000/- in relation to 517 trees in Survey No.22 and Rs.2,54,647/- in place of Rs.2,11,500/- in relation to 470 trees in Survey No. 4/1, which shall be substituted in the impugned judgment and Award accordingly. The appellant shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs.37,400/- for 374 trees in Survey No. 4/1 with additional components, namely 12% from the date of Section 4 notification, 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation, interest at the rate of 9% for one 5 year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation and the solatium till the realisation of the amount. Award be drawn up accordingly. ` JUDGE /TA/