V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Vs Rajesh Radhakisan Jaju and Anr.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:1784

¶2

210.fa1184.1185.2009jud.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2009

¶5

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Chikhali (Buldhana ... Appellant Irrigation Division), Dist. Buldhana

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajesh Radhakisan Jaju Aged about 47 years, Occ.: Agriculturist, R/o. Andhera, Tq. Deulgaon Raja, District – Buldana

¶8

State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Buldana ..Respondents

¶9

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1185 OF 2009

¶10

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer, Minor ... Appellant Irrigation Division No.2, Chikhali (Buldhana Irrigation Division), Dist. Buldhana

¶11

Versus

¶12

Radhakisan Nathmal Jaju Aged about 70 years, Occ.: Agriculturist, R/o. Andhera, Tq. Deulgaon Raja, District – Buldana

¶13

State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Buldana ..Respondents

¶14

Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant.

¶15

Mr. T.D. Dhale, Advocate h/f Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶16

Ms. M.R. Kavimandan, AGP for respondent No.2/State in both appeals.

¶17

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17.02.2025.

¶18

PAGE 1 OF 5

¶19

210.fa1184.1185.2009jud.odt

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶21

Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

(2) First Appeal No.1184/2009 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 15.07.2009 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana in Land Acquisition Case No.124/2007.

¶23

(3) The land of the respondent No.1 bearing Gat No.1062, admeasuring 0.21 HR and Gat No.966, admeasuring 0.10 HR situated at village Andhera, Tah. Deulgaon Raja, District – Buldhana, were acquired for construction of Minor Irrigation Tank of Shivni-Armal. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, awarding compensation @ Rs.55,500/- per hectare for the acquired land. In addition to this, compensation was awarded for trees standing in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the 10 mango trees and 8 jamblum trees standing on the acquired land.

¶24

(4) First Appeal No.1185/2009 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 15.07.2009 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana in Land Acquisition

¶25

PAGE 2 OF 5

¶26

210.fa1184.1185.2009jud.odt

¶27

Case No.125/2007. The land of the respondent No.1 bearing Gat No.965, admeasuring 0.10 HR situated at Village Andhera, Tah. Deulgaon Raja, District – Buldhana, was acquired for the same project and compensation for the acquired land is granted at the same rate i.e. Rs.55,500/- per hectare by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer has also granted compensation for 4 mango trees, 7 tamrind trees and 1 jamblum tree on the acquired land.

¶28

(5) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded the land owners, in both cases, who are respondent No.1 in the respective appeals made applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. The reference has been decided by the learned Civil Court vide judgment and award dated 15.07.2009 in both matters. In LAC No.124/2007, which is the subject matter of First Appeal No.1184/2009, the learned reference Court has granted additional compensation of Rs.13,123/- for the land and has also awarded compensation for 15 mango trees, 13 tamrind trees, 14 jamblum trees and 3 jajube trees. The compensation for the trees is awarded at the same rate which is fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶29

(6) Likewise, in LAC No.125/2007, the learned reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs.3,963/- for the land and has directed to pay compensation for 10 mango trees, 2 tamrind trees and 5

¶30

PAGE 3 OF 5

¶31

210.fa1184.1185.2009jud.odt

¶32

jamblum trees at the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶33

(7) Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned reference Court has erred in awarding additional compensation of land and compensation for trees. As against this, Mr. Tushar Dhale, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – land owners argues that the existence of trees cannot be disputed, as the same is reflected in the Notification under Section 4 and in the joint measurement report also existence of trees is clearly shown. He contends that the Land Acquisition Officer has erred in not awarding compensation for the trees which are admittedly standing on the acquired land.

¶34

(8) Having heard the rival submissions, following point arises for my consideration :

¶35

(i) Does the impugned judgment and award warrant any interference in appeal ?

¶36

(9) As to point No.(i) - The enhancement in award is granted for justifiable reasons recorded in the judgment. The enhancement is very meagre and does not warrant any interference.

¶37

(10) As regards the trees, I have perused the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel. The land measurement report indicates existence of trees. The number of trees is also clearly mentioned

¶38

PAGE 4 OF 5

¶39

210.fa1184.1185.2009jud.odt

¶40

in the said report. It is clear that the number of trees had skipped the attention of the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award. It also needs to be mentioned that the compensation for the trees is awarded at the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The finding regarding the number of trees is just and proper and as such, the impugned judgment and award do not warrant any interference on this point as well. In the light of the aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶41

(11) Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶42

[ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]

¶43

Prity

¶44

PAGE 5 OF 5

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division v. Rajesh Radhakisan Jaju and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division v. Rajesh Radhakisan Jaju and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vadarbha Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal through Executive Engineer, Wan Project Division, Shegaon vs Subhash S/O Ramdhan Sabe and Others

Haridas S/O Deorao Borkar and Another vs Smt. Parbatabai W/O Namdeo Shende and Others

Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Thr. Its Authorized Representative Diganta Koley vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., New Delhi

V.I.D.C., Thr the Exe. Eng. Medium Project Division, Nagpur Vs Deoman S/O Bapu Tapare and Others

Vidarbha Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal through Exective Engineer, Wan Project Division, Shegaon Vs Arjun S/O Manikrao Sabe and Others

Executive Engineer (v.I.D.C.) Minor Irrigation Division, Washim vs Keshrabai Rajaram Bang (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Rupchand S/O Rajaram Bang and Another