THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusLAXMAN JAGANNATH NAROTE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:41128

                                                                               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
                                                                   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/