- (1.) All these Appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the State Government against the common award dated 23/4/1997 passed by the Joint District Judge, Nashik in Land Reference Nos. 412, 413, 415 and 417 of 1989. In the first part of the award the Reference Court fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 25,000/- per hectare and in the second part it awarded compensation for the fruit trees as well as for the well and structures. The claimants have filed Cross Objections in First Appeal Nos. 358, 360 and 361 of 1999 and claimed higher market value for the land as well as higher compensation for the fruit bearing trees. In his depositions before the Reference Court, Shri Somanth Damu Gorade the claimant in L.R. No. 413/1989 stated that in L.R. No. 402/1989 the claimant had received Rs. 25000/-per hectare as market value for the bagayat land and hence he claimed the very same market value on the basis of parity. However, during the course of the arguments it is not much in dispute between both the parties that the market rate awarded at Rs. 25,000/- per hectare has been confirmed by this Court in connected appeals and, therefore, the challenge in these appeals remains only in respect of the compensation awarded for the fruit bearing trees by the common award.
(2.) The Government of Maharashtra issued the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) on 30/10/1980 for acquiring the land for construction of Nandur Madmeshwar Express Canal and the declaration under Section 6 was published on 2/7/1981 whereas the SLAO passed his award on 23/9/1986. The claimants accepted the award amount under protest and submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation. They claimed that the market rate of the acquired land was required to be fixed at Rs. 50,000/-for bagayat and Rs. 25,000/-for jirait as against the market rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 9500/-. So far as the fruit bearing trees are concerned the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 413/89 fixed the compensation at Rs. 900/-per tree for 970 grape trees, Rs. 100/-per tree for 33 grape trees, Rs. 800/-per tree for 249 guava trees, Rs. 50/-per tree for 24 guava trees and Rs. 3000/-per tree for 25 mango tress. In L.A.R. No. 412/89 the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 750/-per tree for 200 grape trees, Rs. 3000/for one mango tree. In L.A.R. No. 415/89 the compensation for trees was fixed at Rs. 750/-per tree for 181 grape trees and Rs. 3000/-per tree for five mango trees. In L.A.R. No. 417/89 it was fixed at Rs. 750/-per tree for 181 grape trees. In L.A.R. No. 413/89 the compensation for the land was awarded at Rs. 33,500/-admeasuring 1 H. 34 R. whereas for all the fruit trees the compensation awarded came to Rs. 11,51,700/-. In L.A.R. No. 412/89 the compensation for the land was awarded at Rs. 16,750/-measuring 67 R. whereas for the fruit bearing trees the compensation amount granted was Rs. 1,53,000/-. In L.A.R. No. 415/89 the compensation for land admeasuring 66 R. was awarded at Rs. 6500/-, whereas for the bruit bearing trees the compensation awarded came to Rs. 1,50,750/-. In L.A.R. No. 417/89 the compensation for the land admeasuring 67 R. was at Rs. 16,750/-whereas for the fruit bearing trees compensation was awarded at Rs. 1,35,750/-.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned AGP that the method adopted for determining the compensation for the fruit bearing trees by the Reference Court is based on income capitalization method and the same cannot be adopted when the compensation for the land has been awarded by fixing the market value as Bagayat land (perennially irrigated). It was submitted that if the market value of the land is fixed on the basis that it is Bagayat land, the fruit bearing trees cannot be separately valued and compensation if at all has to be on the basis that it was firewood. In the alternative it was submitted that if the compensation for fruit bearing trees is calculated and awarded on the basis of income capitalization method, no compensation is required to be given for the land acquired and the claimants cannot have both the benefits. They must opt for one of them and it was fairly conceded before us that better of the two benefits could be allowed to be retained. It was further submitted that the valuation done in respect of the fruit bearing trees is also excessively high, it is unreasonable and unrealistic. If the Reference Court accepted the Government Valuers report (Deputy Director of Horticulture at Exhibit 14), the said report was required to be accepted in toto and not in bits and pieces. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that even the compensation fixed for the fruit bearing trees even by following income capitalization method is excessive and is required to be slashed down and in no case there could be separate compensation granted for the land on which the fruit bearing trees were standing. In support of these arguments the learned AGP has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh, 1995 Supp2 SCC 637 2. Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. v. Kamadana Ramkrishna Rao and Anr., 2007 3 SCC 526 3. Dy. Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu and Ors., 2006 12 SCC 87;