1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5008    OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.31761/2016)

BILQUIS       ...Appellant

Versus

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  & OTHERS ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  judgment  dated  02.09.2014  passed  by  the  High  Court  of

Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No. 83

of  1994  is  called  in  question  in  this  appeal.   By  the  impugned

judgment,  the  High  Court  has  reduced  the  compensation  to

Rs.50,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and Rs.9,500/- per hectare

for dry land from Rs.1,62,500/- per hectare awarded (uniformly) by the

Reference  Court.   The  High Court  has  also  set  aside  the  award  of

compensation to the claimant at Rs.1200/- per orange tree.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

2

The land bearing survey no. 32 admeasuring 9 Hectares and 20

Ares  of  village  Pimpri  Mokhed,  Taluka  Karanja,  District  Akola,

Maharashtra  was  acquired  for  the  purpose  of  construction  of

‘Percolation Tank’ at village Pimpri Mokhad; notification under Section

4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)

was issued on 13.11.1986; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was

published on 11.04.1987;  award was passed on 31.03.1988 by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer granting compensation at the rate of

Rs.9,500/- per hectare for the dry land and Rs.12,500/- for irrigated

land; the award amount was received by the claimant ‘under protest’,

and she thereafter filed a reference application under Section 18 of the

Act seeking enhanced compensation with all statutory benefits.

4. The  claimant  examined  six  witnesses  and  relied  upon  certain

relevant documents in support of her case before the Reference Court.

On behalf  of  the  State,  one  witness  was examined.   The Reference

Court, on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing both

sides,  enhanced  compensation  to  the  tune  of  Rs.1,62,500/-  per

hectare for the land, and Rs.1200/- per orange tree (325 orange trees)

totalling  to  Rs.3,90,000/-.   The  Reference  Court  also  awarded  a

compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards barbed fencing, babul trees and

underground pipe line etc., apart from other statutory benefits.  On

appeal  by  the  State,  the  High  Court  has  reduced  compensation  to

3

Rs.50,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and Rs.9,500/- per hectare

for dry land.  As mentioned supra, the compensation awarded by the

Reference Court in respect of orange trees and barbed fencing etc. was

also set aside by the High Court.   

5. While reducing the compensation, the High Court has relied upon

another judgment of the High Court dated 14.08.2008 passed in First

Appeal No. 282 of 2000 and connected matters. There is nothing on

record  to  show  that  the  said  judgment  was  relating  to  the  lands

acquired under the very notification dated 13.11.1986 under which the

land in question is acquired.  The High Court, while discussing the

material on record to arrive at the conclusion based on a capitalisation

method, has overlooked the ample material on record.  Though, the

High Court, while observing in paragraph 11 of its judgment that the

plantation of about 325 orange trees was done in the year 1981-1982,

as is apparent  from Exhibit 27, as well as relying upon the report of

the  Tahsildar,  Exhibit  26,  disclosing  about  300  to  325  plants  of

oranges, has strangely refused to grant compensation for orange trees

solely on the ground that these orange trees were not fruit bearing

trees.  Except referring to the afore-mentioned factor, no other factor is

discussed by the High Court while coming to the conclusion on the

point of grant of compensation  based on capitalisation method.

4

6. Exhibit 21 is the copy of the valuation report.  Exhibit 23 is the

signed valuation report of the well situated in survey no. 32 and the

same  was  drawn  by  Assistant  Engineer,  Minor  Irrigation,  Karanja.

Exhibit 24 is the signed letter of Assistant Engineer addressed to the

Tahshildar,  Karanja  regarding  crop  panchanama.  Exhibit  26  is  the

copy  of  the  crop  panchanama  of  the  land  in  question  dated

19.10.1986. Exhibit 27 is the copy of the revenue extract of the land

bearing survey no. 32 for the years 1978-1979 to 1985-1986.  All these

records were produced and marked through PW1-Ashok Vibhute.

7. The evidence of PW2-Harun Haji (son of the claimant) discloses

that cotton was being grown without affecting the orange plantation;

the claimant used to grow Chilli,  Tur crop and Moong crop also at

different years; that there was barbed fencing around the whole land,

that there were about 325 orange trees in the said land and about 40

babul trees on the boundary.  According to PW-2, the land in question

was an irrigated land, inasmuch as the land is fed with the water from

the well  situated in the land for irrigation purposes.   The well  was

constructed with stones and cement and  an electric 3HP motor was

installed on the well.  According to PW-2, there was a perennial source

of water and the land was being irrigated for 12 months.  According to

him, his family was getting a net income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum

from the agricultural crops; that the orange trees were 4 to 5 years old

5

and were fruit  bearing at  that  point  of  time;  that  the  income from

orange  trees  was  Rs.1,50,000/-  per  annum.   He  has  also  deposed

about the population of the Karanja village and about the situation of

the land and the connectivity of the land through road.  Nothing is

brought out in the cross-examination of PW-2 to discard his evidence.

Evidence of PW-3-Vimal Dongaokar also fully supports the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 to the effect that there was a well and the same was used

for irrigating the land with the assistance of motor pump and pipe line.

He has also deposed about the barbed fencing abound the land and

about the situation of babul trees on the boundaries.  PWs 4, 5 and 6

are  the  neighbouring  land  owners.  All  of  them  have  also  deposed

supporting the case of  the claimant.   Though these witnesses were

cross-examined in detail on behalf of the State Government, we do not

find  any  credible  material  so  as  to  discard  the  evidence  of  these

witnesses.

8. The only witness examined on behalf of the State was a ‘Talathi’

(inferior revenue officer in the village).  He has admitted that he has

not personally visited the land at survey no. 32, and that he has given

evidence about the assessment as per the record. He also admits that

the assessment was determined in the year 1927 and the same was

continuing so far.  He has also  clearly  admitted that  prior  to 1988,

generally  the people were executing sale deeds showing lesser price

6

than the market price to save stamp duty.  He had not brought even

the  revenue  assessment  record  before  the  Court  at  the  time  of

deposing.  In the light of such evidence adduced by the State and in

the light  of  the fact that no relevant records were produced by the

State, there is no reason as to why the evidence put forth on behalf of

the  appellant  which  has  almost  remained  unrebutted  should  be

ignored by the High Court.      

9. There is ample material  on record to show that the claimant’s

land is situated at a distance of  five kilometers from Karanja town,

which is having about a population of 50,000 to 60,000, and is having

an Agriculture Produce market.  Though the Special Land  Acquisition

Officer  has  shown  only  4  to  6  hectares  as  irrigated  land,  the

panchanama  prepared   by  the  Tahsildar  clearly  shows  that  the

claimant’s acquired land contained 8 hectares of irrigated land out of

total extent of about 9 hectares. Be that as it may, there cannot be any

doubt that a major portion of the land (i.e. about 85% to 90%) of the

claimant was irrigated land and the land was being fed with water

drawn from the well situated in that very land.  Based on the record,

the Reference Court also found that the well was having a perennial

source of  water,  the same was being drawn with the electric motor

pump set, and the water was sufficient to irrigate the whole extent of

the  claimant’s  land.   It  is  also  borne  out  from  the  order  of  the

7

Reference Court that the underground pipe line is in four hectares of

land  and  the  land  was  fully  surrounded  by  barbed  fencing.   The

records of the acquisition including the panchanama by the authorities

at the time of taking possession clearly reveal that there were more

than 300-325 orange trees which were about 4 to 5 years old.  The

documents also reveal the existence of babul trees on the boundary of

the  land  acquired.  The  price  of  babul  trees  is  also  found  in  the

valuation report. Though, the Reference Court has relied upon certain

sale  statistics  of  lands,  we  find  that  all  those  sale  statistics  are

pertaining to the post acquisition period and hence we do not propose

to rely upon such sale statistics.

10. Though the High Court has clearly observed that there were more

than  300  orange  trees  which  were  about  4  to  5  years  old,  it  has

strangely  not awarded any compensation in respect of orange trees.

The High Court has also totally  ignored the income from the crops

grown over the land.

11. It is not in dispute that generally, the orange trees would start

yielding fruits from the fifth year.  Since the orange plants were about

4 to 5 years old, the Reference Court was justified in observing that the

orange trees had just then started yielding fruits to the claimant.  Even

otherwise, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the trees were very

much ripe for yielding orange fruits.    Therefore,  in our considered

8

opinion, the Reference Court was justified in awarding compensation

in  respect  of  the  orange  trees.   The  Reference  Court  on  facts  has

determined  price  of  each  orange  tree  at  Rs.60  which  will  remain

undisturbed. However, in our considered opinion, the Reference Court

was not justified in adopting twenty years purchase as a multiplier

while qualifying the market value of each orange tree.  Rather, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, it would have been proper had the

Reference Court used the ten years purchase as a multiplier.  Thus, in

our considered opinion, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.600/- (60

x 10 = 600) per orange tree,  instead of Rs.1200/-(60 x 20 = 1200)

awarded by the reference Court.  Therefore, the total compensation in

respect  of  325  orange  trees  would  be  Rs.1,95,000/-  (600  x  325  =

1,95,000).

12. The High Court has ignored the higher revenue assessment of the

land  of  the  claimant.   The  revenue  assessment  of  the  land  of  the

claimant  is  about  Rs.30.   As  mentioned  supra,  the  Special  Land

Acquisition Officer has shown 4 to 6 hectares of the land in question

as irrigated land, but the panchanama, Exhibit  26 prepared by the

Tahsildar shows 8 hectares of  the land of the claimant as irrigated

land.   Thus,  it  is  clear  that  as  on  the  date  of  taking  possession,

85%-90% of the acquired land was irrigated land.  It is also clear from

the  record  that  one  well  having  perennial  source  of  water  and  an

9

electric motor pump was installed for the same. The land acquired was

being used for growing varieties of crops in different years including

chilli crops and cotton. Since irrigation facilities were available to the

claimant for 12 months in a year, the Court may take notice of the fact

that there was sufficient agricultural income from the land in question.

Since the land in question is irrigated land having perennial source of

water for 12 months, the High Court, in our considered opinion, is not

justified  in  awarding  compensation  of  Rs.50,000/-  per  hectare  for

irrigated land and Rs.9,500/- for dry land.  In our considered opinion,

the Reference Court has assigned certain valid reasons for coming to

the conclusion.  Totality of the facts lead us to the conclusion that the

claimant/appellant is  entitled to compensation of  Rs.1,50,000/- per

hectare of the land.  She is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards barbed

fencing,  babul  trees,  underground  pipe  line  etc.   Thus,  in  all,  the

claimant/appellant is entitled to the following compensation:

a) the  claimant/appellant  shall  be  awarded  Rs.1,50,000/-  per

hectare of  the acquired land; Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards

barbed fencing, babul trees, underground pipe line etc.; Rs.1,95,000/-

towards compensation for orange trees (600 x 325 = 195,000);  

b) the claimant/appellant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits

including solatium and interest as per law.

10

13.  The  instant  appeal  is  allowed  in  the  aforesaid  terms.  The

judgment of the High Court is set aside accordingly. No order as to

costs.    

……………………………………….J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

…………………………………….….J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

New Delhi; May 11, 2018.

11

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.5               SECTION IX                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  31761/2016 BILQUIS                                            Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.            Respondent(s) Date : 11-05-2018 This petition was called on for Judgment today.   For Petitioner(s) Mrs.  Sudha Gupta, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Kunal Cheema, Adv.  

Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.                      Ms. Nidhi, AOR                      

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Mohan  M.  Shantanagoudar  pronounced  the non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and His Lordship.   

Leave granted.   The appeal is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)