NON­REPORTABLE
      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).    5611­5612    OF 2021
           (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 36247­36248 of 2016)
BHUPENDRA RAMDHAN PAWAR     ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, NAGPUR AND ORS. ETC.  ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
                    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).      5613     OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13859 of 2019)
                      CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).     5614       OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13874 of 2019)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 36247­36248 of 2016
1. Leave granted.
1

2. The   appellant   has   challenged   the   judgment   and   order   dated
23 rd
  October,   2015   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Bombay
determining the compensation payable to the appellant in reference
to   the   acquisition   proceedings   which   were   initiated   pursuant   to   a
notification   under   Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,
1894(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   ‘Act”)   dated   14 th
  August,
1997.
3. The total land admeasuring 9 hectares and 98 ares situated at
Mouza Khandala, Tq. Manora, District Washim came to be acquired
by   the   respondents   pursuant   to   the   acquisition   proceedings
initiated under Section 4 of the Act published in the Gazette dated
14 th
  August,   1997.     In   furtherance   thereof,   declaration   was   made
under Section 6 of the Act which was published in the Government
Gazette on 20 th
 August, 1998.  The land acquisition officer pursuant
thereto passed an award dated 20 th
  August, 1999 in respect of the
acquired land and valued the land under field Gat No. 1/1 and 1/ 2
at the rate of Rs. 35,000/­ per hectare for dry crop land and under
Gat  No.   11   at   the   rate   of   Rs.   46,600/­   per   hectare   on   the   basis   of
revenue assessment with standing trees.  On appeal being preferred
2

at the instance of the present appellant under Section 54 of the Act
read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the High Court
under   the   impugned   judgment,   after   hearing   the   parties,   granted
him the following reliefs:­
(i) The   claimant   Bhupendra   Ramdhan   Pawar   is   entitled   to
compensation   at   the   rate   of   Rs.   1,00,000/­   per   hectare   for
land   admeasuring   7   H   98   Ares,   out   of   the   acquired   land
admeasuring 9 Hectares 98 Ares deducting land admeasuring 2
H on which orange trees were cultivated.
(ii) Claimant is held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000/­
per tree for 554 orange trees in Gat no. 1/1 and 1/ 2.
(iii) Claimant is held entitled to Rs. 91,305/­ as compensation for well
in Gat No. 1/1 and for well in Gat No. 1 /2 to Rs. 26,000/­.
(iv) Claimant is held entitled to compensation for 327 firewood trees at
the rate of Rs. 300/­ per tree.
(v) Claimant is held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/­
per tree for 400 Sindhi trees.
(vi) Claimant is held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/­
per tree for 30 berry trees.
(vii) The   claim   in   respect   of   100   mango   trees   at   the   rate   of   Rs.
1000/­   per   tree,   as   has   been   awarded   by   the   reference   Court,
is rejected.
(viii) Rest   of   the   statutory   entitlements   of   the   claimant   including
solatium   under   Section   23(2)   of   the   Act,   interest   under
Section   28   of   the   Act   and   component   under   Section   23­A   of
the   Act   of   1894   be   calculated   accordingly   along   with   future
interest at the rate of 15 % per annum till full realization.
3

(ix) The   judgment   and   order   dated   17 th
  of   April,   2008   passed   by
reference   Court   in   LAC   No.   170   of   1999   stands   modified
accordingly.
(x) The   reference   Court   is   directed   to   calculate   the   compensation
payable to the claimant after giving notice to both sides within four
months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   writ   and   certified   copy   of   the
judgment.
(xi) If  any  amount  is  withdrawn by  the  claimant,  same shall  be  taken
into   consideration   while   making   ultimate   payment   of   dues   to   the
claimant.
(xii) The amount deposited by the appellant in Appeal No. 1265 of 2013
if   found   to   be   in   excess,   the   same   shall   be   refunded   to   the
appellant.
(xiii) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”
4. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the
compensation   @   Rs.   1,00,000/­   per   hectare   awarded   by   the   High
Court   is   not   adequate   and   under   the   two   sale   deeds   dated   28 th
December,   1994  and   12 th
  March,   1996,   the   market   price   comes   to
Rs.   50,000/­   per   hectare   in   the   year   1994   and   on   the   basis   of
second   sale   deed   of   March,   1996,   the   market   price   came   to   Rs.
75,000/­ per hectare and the present acquisition being of the year
1997,   adequate   appreciation   has   not   been   made   while   computing
compensation and it deserves further enhancement.
4

5. Learned   counsel   submits   that   the   compensation   of
Rs.   1,00,000/­   has   been   determined   with   reference   to   sales
statistics and that being so, trees will have to be valued separately
and   this   what   has   been   held   by   this   Court   in   Ambya   Kalya
Mhatre(Dead) through LRs and Others  Vs.  State of Maharashtra    1
and submits that the finding recorded by the High Court depriving
the appellant of computing compensation in reference to 2 hectares
of acquired land needs to be interfered by this Court.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the findings which have
been   recorded   by   the   High   Court   rejecting   the   claim   in   respect   of
100   mango   trees   awarded   by   the   reference   court   needs   to   be
interfered by this Court.
7. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while
supporting   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   submits   that
compensation which has been determined by the High Court of Rs.
1,00,000/­ per hectare for the acquired land is based on the factual
matrix   and   appellant   has   relied   upon   two   sale   instances,   (i)   sale
deed dated 28 th
  December,  1994 of  39 ares  land consideration  was
1   2011(9) SCC 325
5

Rs. 20,000/­(thus market value of 1 Hectare = Rs. 50,000/­) (ii) sale
deed   dated   12 th
  March,   1996   about   2   hectare   1   Are   land   for   the
consideration   of   Rs.   1,50,000/­(thus   market   value   of   1   Hectare   =
Rs.   75,000/­).     It   can   be   noticed   that   the   sale   instance   of   12 th
March,   1996   is   one   year   prior   to   Section   4   notification,   even   by
adding 10% increase in the value, market value of 1 hectare would
be Rs. 82,500/­. 
8. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   compensation   of   Rs.
1,00,000/­   per   hectare   granted   for   the   whole   land   is   a   fair
compensation and it needs no further indulgence by this Court. 
9. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   so   far   as   the   claim   in
respect of mango trees which has been rejected by the High Court is
concerned,   reliance   was   placed   by   the   reference   court   on   survey
report   at   Annexure   P­1(page   41   of   the   paper   book)   which   was
prepared   on   23 rd
  November,   1994   and   the   finding   has   been
recorded that for the period 1990­91 to 1993­94, there is reference
to   277   orange   trees   and   100   mango   trees   while   in   7/12   extracts
Exhibit­46   for   the   period   from   1994­95   to   1998­99,   there   is   no
mention   of   mango   trees   from   1994­95   onwards,   though   there   is   a
6

reference   of   277   orange   trees.     Since,   there   was   no   evidence   on
record establishing existence of 100 mango trees as claimed on the
date   when   the   acquisition   proceedings   were   initiated   in   August
1997, the claim was rightly rejected by the High Court.
10. Learned  counsel  further   submits   that   the   valuation  of   orange
trees   has   been   made   at   the   rate   of   Rs.   3000/­   per   tree   and   2
hectares   of   land   for   which   compensation   has   not   been   computed
may   be   considered   in   the   light   of   judgment   in   Ambya   Kalya
Mhatre(Dead) through LRs and Others (supra) .
11. After we have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
we   are   of   the   view   that   the   compensation   of   Rs.   1,00,000/­   per
hectare as awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment is
a   fair   compensation  duly   supported   by  the   material   on   record   and
that needs no interference from this Court.
12. So far as the claim in respect of 100 mango trees is concerned,
it was awarded by the reference Court at the rate of Rs. 1000/­ per
tree. The High Court after appreciation of the evidence has rejected
the claim based on the following findings:­
7

“Having   considering  the  above  aspect  and  on  considering   7/12
extracts   of   the   acquired   land,   we   further   find   that   as   per   7/12
extract Exh. 47 and Exh. 44 for the period from 1990­91 to 1993­
94   there   is   reference   to   277   orange   trees   in   each   of   Gat   No.   1/1
and1/ 2 and 100 mango trees while in the 7/12 extracts Exh. 46
for   the   period   from   1994­95   to   1998­99   there   is   no   mention   of
mango   trees   from   1994­95   onwards,   though   there   is   reference   of
277 orange trees each in above Gat numbers, 400 Sindhi trees and
30 berry trees during above period.  As such, we find that claimant
has failed to produce satisfactory evidence establishing existence of
100 mango trees as claimed and in fact from his evidence we find
that   claimant   is   even   not   aware   as   to   in   which   field   there   were
mango trees.”
13. After   going   through   the   finding   of   fact   recorded   by   the   High
Court, we find no reason to interfere.
14. Admittedly, for 2 hectares of land, compensation has not been
awarded   and   it   is   not   disputed   that   the   land   value   has   been
determined   with   reference   to   sales   statistics   and   this   Court   in
Ambya Kalya Mhatre(Dead) through LRs and Others (supra) held
that   in   a   case   where   the   land   value   has   been   determined   with
reference   to   the   sales   statistics,   the   trees   will   have   to   be   valued
separately.  The relevant paras as referred hereunder:­
34.   The   High   Court   has   also   held   that   once   the   compensation   is
awarded   for   the   land,   there   cannot   be   additional   or   separate
compensation   for   the   trees.   For   this   purpose,   the   High   Court   has
relied   upon   the   following   observations   of   this   Court   in   State   of
Haryana   v.   Gurcharan Singh   [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637])
8

“ 3 .   …   It   is   settled   law   that   the   Collector   or   the   court
who determines the compensation for the land as well
as   fruit­bearing   trees   cannot   determine   them
separately.   The   compensation   is   to   the   value   of   the
acquired land. The market value is determined on the
basis   of   the   yield.   Then   necessarily   applying   suitable
multiplier,   the   compensation   needs   to   be   awarded.
Under   no   circumstances   the   court   should   allow   the
compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as
well   as   fruit­bearing   trees.   In   other   words,   market
value of the land is determined twice over; once on the
basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of
the   yield   got   from   the   fruit­bearing   trees.   The
definition   of   land   includes   the   benefits   which   accrue
from   the   land   as   defined   in   Section   3( a )   of   the   Act.
After   compensation   is   determined   on   the   basis   of   the
value of the land as distinct from the income applying
suitable   multiplier,   then   the   trees   would   be   valued
only   as   firewood   and   necessary   compensation   would
be given.”
35.   We   are   afraid   that   the   High   Court   has   misread   the   said
decision   in   regard   to   valuing   the   land   and   trees   separately.   If   the
land   value   had   been   determined   with   reference   to   the   sale
statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then
necessarily,   the   trees   will   have   to  be   valued   separately.   But   if   the
value   of   the   land   has   been   determined   on   the   basis   of   the   sale
statistics   or   compensation   awarded   for   an   orchard,   that   is   land
with  fruit­bearing  trees, then there  is no question of  again  adding
the   value   of   the   trees.   Further,   if   the   market   value   has   been
determined by capitalising the income with reference to yield, then
also the question of making any addition either for the land or for
the trees separately does not arise. In this case, the determination
of   market   value   was   not   with   reference   to   the   yield.   Nor   was   the
determination of market value in regard to the land with reference
to   the   value   of   any   orchard   but   was   with   reference   to   vacant
agricultural   land.   In   the   circumstances,   the   value   of   the   trees
could be added to the value of the land.
9

15. Admittedly,   in   the   instant   case,   the   land   value   has   been
determined with reference to the sales statistics by the High Court
in the impugned judgment.   That being the factual position, in our
considered   view,   the   appellant   is   entitled   for   compensation   for
2 hectares of land in reference to which compensation has not been
awarded   under   the   impugned   judgment   at   the   rate   of   Rs.
1,00,000/­   per   hectare   along   with   statutory   entitlement   to   the
claimant/appellant as referred to by the High Court in para (viii) till
realization under the impugned judgment.
16. Consequently,   the   appeals   partly   succeed   and   accordingly
allowed.     The   appellant   shall   be   entitled   to   compensation   @   Rs.
1,00,000/­   per   hectare   for   the   land   admeasuring   2   hectares
situated   at   Mouza   Khandala,   Tq.   Manora,   District   Washim   along
with statutory entitlement as referred to by the High Court in para
(viii)   of   the   impugned   judgment   dated   23 rd
  October,   2015   till
realization.     The   compliance   be   made   within   three   months.     No
costs.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
10

Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 13859 of 2019
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 13874 of 2019
18. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant(s)   submits   that   the
compensation   of   Rs.   1,00,000/­   per   hectare   awarded   by   the   High
Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   is   inadequate   and   deserves
enhancement in the given facts and circumstances. 
19. We have declined the claim for enhancement of compensation
in   our   judgment   in   the   connected   appeals   being   Civil   Appeals   @
SLP(Civil) Nos. 36247­36248 of 2016.
20. Consequently,   the   appeals   are   without   substance   and
accordingly dismissed.  No costs.
21. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 09, 2021
11