1 16) FA 511-2015-J.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 20 15 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Engineer, Purna Medium Project Division, Achalpur ... Appellant .. Versus .. 1. Bhimrao Sitaramji Pete, aged about 50 years, occupation: agriculture, r/o. Brahmanwada Thadi, Tahsil Chadur Bazar, District Amravati 2. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Amravati, Tq. And District Amravati 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Wardha Project No. 4, Amravati, Tq. And District Amravati ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vinay Dahat, Advocate h/f. Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant. Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Ms. S.S.Dhote, AGP for respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 04 /0 3 /2026 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant- 2026:BHC-NAG:3708 2 16) FA 511-2015-J.odt Acquiring Body, the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 1- Claimant and the learned AGP for the State. 2. This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘L.A.Act’) by the Acquiring Body against the judgment and award dated 29/04/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Achalpur in L.A.C. No. 23/2005, awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,42,667/- per hectare towards the acquired land admeasuring 0 H.19 R, out of Survey no. 622, Mouja Brahmanwada Thadi, Tq. Chandur Bazar, District Amravati and Rs. 5,000/- per orange tree for 9 years old trees and Rs. 2,000/- per orange tree towards for 4 years old trees. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Acquiring Body that, the rate in respect of the land enhanced by the learned Reference Court, is within four (4) times of the rate determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). He fairly submits that, the State Government by issuing Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 03/11/2016 and Corrigendum dated 23/02/2017 has taken a policy decision not to challenge the enhancement, which is within four (4) times. He 3 16) FA 511-2015-J.odt submits that, the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation in respect of orange trees. He further submits that, the Claimant examined the Valuer for the claim in respect of the orange trees. He submits that, the enhanced rate of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court in respect of the trees be modified. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent no. 1–Claimant that, the rate determined by the Expert Valuer was Rs. 9,245/- per tree and the learned Reference Court determined the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per tree and Rs. 2,000/- per tree for 9 years old and 4 years old orange trees, respectively. He submits that, the said enhancement was reasonable and no interference was called for. 5. It is submitted by the learned AGP for the State that, an appropriate order be passed. 6. As regards the rate in respect of the acquired land is concerned, the SLAO determined the rate of Rs. 2,34,110/- per hectare and the learned Reference Court enhanced the same at Rs. 3,42,667/- per hectare. This clearly goes to show that, the enhancement by the learned Reference Court in respect of the 4 16) FA 511-2015-J.odt acquired land was within four (4) times and therefore, in view of above referred G.R. and Corrigendum, the challenge to the enhanced compensation for the acquired land does not survive. 7. There is no dispute in respect of the number of trees on the acquired land. There were 36 orange trees of 9 years old and 35 orange trees of 4 years old in the acquired land. The Respondent – Claimant examined the Expert Valuer in support of his claim for enhancement in the compensation. The observations in the impugned judgment shows that, the Expert Valuer valued the value of per tree @ Rs. 9,245/-. However, the learned Reference Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per tree for 9 years old orange trees and Rs. 2,000/- per tree for 4 years old orange trees. The rate towards the orange trees enhanced by the learned Reference Court is around 55% of the valuation of the trees done by the Expert Valuer. It appears to be reasonable and just compensation. In absence of any other thing to show that, the said rate enhanced by the learned Reference Court is perverse, I see no merits in the Appeal. Hence, the following order:- ORDER i) The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 16) FA 511-2015-J.odt ii) The amount deposited by the Acquiring Body in this Court under the impugned award is allowed to be withdrawn by the Claimant to the extent of enhanced compensation, by following due procedure. iii) R & P be sent back to the learned Reference Court. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] B.T.K.