FA 2339/08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2339 OF 2008 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS LAXMAN JAGANNATH NAROTE AND ANR ... AGP for Appellants : Mr. S.N. Morampalle Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. P.R. Nangare ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 31, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the present acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1994, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant/acquiring body assails the judgment and award dated 30.6.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in LAR No. 268/1996, whereby the reference court has granted compensation for trees. 3. The land of the claimant admeasuring 12 R. from Survey No. 96/2/A situated at village Mohari, Tal. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar was acquired for the project of Mohari Percolation Tank. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 24.3.1994. The learned Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the award and has granted total compensation of Rs.8991/-. Being dissatisfied with the award of the SLAO, the claimant filed an application before the Collector for referring the matter under section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned reference court after going through the 2026:BHC-AUG:41128 FA 2339/08 2 evidence and examining the record, granted compensation for acquired trees. Being dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed by the acquiring body. 4. Mr. S.N. Morampalle, learned AGP for the State submits that while considering the compensation towards trees, it does not reflected in the award that trees were acquired. The learned AGP submits that there were no entries of trees in the 7/12 extract of the year 1988-89 and on the basis of report of 1992, the reference court has wrongly granted compensation for trees. He therefore prays to quash and set aside the impugned award passed by the reference court. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.R. Nangre, learned counsel for the original claimants submits that in fact 64 sweet lime trees were damaged because of continuous percolation of water from the above project, therefore, the claimant filed application and also given notice in self immolation in the year 1992 to the competent authority. He submits that thereafter, inquiry was conducted and joint measurement was held and as per the report of 1992 of District Horticulture Officer, it was submitted that there were 64 sweet lime trees and due to continuous percolation of water from that project, the trees were damaged and thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the appellant for acquiring 12 R. land of the claimant in which trees were standing and which were already damaged. But while passing the award by SLAO, instead of mentioning the number of trees, compensation was granted for acquired land, however, subsequently, the reference court has granted compensation for trees and no compensation was granted for 12 R. land. He submits that considering the above, the appeal filed by the State may be dismissed. FA 2339/08 3 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment and award of the reference court. There is no dispute about the fact that in the year 1992 the claimant had filed an application before the competent authority as due to continuous percolation of water from the above project, his trees were damaged. Even Government officials, who have visited the site has specifically stated in their report that because of the continuous percolation of the water, trees of the claimants were damaged and submitted the valuation report accordingly. Thereafter, the proceedings to acquire the land of the claimant was initiated in the year 1994 and infact when the land was acquired, the trees were already damaged and therefore, the LAO has not granted damages for the trees and that is the reason why those trees were not incorporated in the award passed by the SLAO. 7. After going through the record, I find that in the year 1992 itself damage was caused to the trees of the claimants and after two years the land of the claimant was acquired. But the fact remains that because of the percolation of the water from above project, the trees were damaged and therefore, the land of the claimant admeasuring 12 R. was acquired by the State and therefore, I hold that on the basis of the above, the SLAO ought to have mention the number of trees which were damaged due to percolation of water and ought to have granted compensation for damaged trees. Therefore, section 4 notification came to be issued in the year 1994. The SLAO has also not mentioned the number of trees which were damaged. But the fact remains that there were trees and even in Government official’s report also, it was mentioned that there were 64 FA 2339/08 4 sweet lime trees and they were damaged due to percolation of the water in the area of 12 R. belonged to the claimant. Therefore, the reference court has rightly granted compensation towards the trees and no compensation was granted for acquired land admeasuring 12 R. as compensation was already paid by the SLAO. 8. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the reference court. Hence, the appeal sans merits and the same is dismissed. Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/