CHAVALIBAI MULCHAND RATHODversusTHE COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:26403
                                              1                          FA482/2018
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO.482 OF 2018

               Chavalibai Mulchand Rathod
               Age : Major, Occu : Agri,
               R/o. Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jamner,
               Dist. Jalgaon                                           … Appellant
                                                                       (Orig. Claimant)
                     Versus

               1.    The Collector, Jalgaon

               2.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                     MIW, Jalgaon

               3.    Executive Engineer,
                     Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation,
                     Jalgaon

               4.    Executive Engineer,
                     MIW, Jalgaon                                      … Respondents
                                                                      (Orig. Respondents)
                                                 …..
                           Shri. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for the Appellant
                          Shri. N. D. Raje, AGP for the Respondent – State.
                         Shri. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.4
                                                 …..

                                                  CORAM      : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                                  DATED      : 07.07.2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .     This is the First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

               Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘L.A. Act’) by the Appellant -

               Claimant for enhanced compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees,

               being not satisfied with the compensation determined by the learned

               Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, in L.A.R. No.343/2009
                               2                          FA482/2018
decided vide Judgment and Award dated 18.09.2017.



2.    The Appellant’s land bearing Gat No.19, admeasuring 2-Hectares,

11-Ares and 0-Hectare, 16-Ares Pot Kharab, situated at village Londhari,

Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon, came to be acquired for the Minor Irrigation

Tank Londhari Project. Section - 4 Notification came to be published on

08.01.2004 and the Award came to be passed on 30.04.2007

determining the compensation for the land and fruit bearing trees.

Being not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘SLAO’), the Appellant preferred

above referred Reference Application and led the evidence. No evidence

was led by the Respondents. The learned Reference Court determined

the compensation @ Rs.10,40,000/- per Hectare for Bagayat land,

@ Rs.2,60,000/- per Hectare for Pot Kharab land and Rs.11,760/- for

one Mango tree, with the statutory benefits.



3.    Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant - Claimant, the

learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the

State. Perused the papers.


A)    It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant -

Claimant that, there is no serious challenge to the compensation

determined by the learned Reference Court in respect of the land.

The Appeal is primarily for enhancement in the compensation towards
                              3                           FA482/2018
the fruit bearing trees on the acquired land. The Appellant examined

the Valuer, whose evidence remained unshaken in the cross-

examination. No evidence was led by the Respondents. Therefore, the

learned Reference Court ought to have accepted the Valuer’s evidence

instead of discarding the same and enhanced the compensation towards

the fruit bearing trees as per the Valuer’s Report. Without any proper

reasons, the Valuer’s Report was discarded by the learned Reference

Court. The compensation for the trees is enhanced on the basis of the

Award. In support of his submissions, he relied on the Judgment dated

23.09.2019 passed by this Court in a group of First Appeals, one of

which is First Appeal No.2270 of 2014.


B)    It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body

and the learned AGP for the State that, the learned Reference Court has

rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly discarded the

Valuer’s evidence. Except the Mango tree, all the other trees were

saplings and therefore, the Appellant was not entitled for the

compensation for the saplings. No fault can be found with the Judgment

and Award passed by the learned Reference Court and the Appeal be

dismissed.


4.    Perusal of the above referred Judgment of this Court relied by the

learned Advocate for the Appellant shows that, they were the Appeals by

the Orig. Claimants against the Judgment and Award passed by the
                               4                           FA482/2018
concerned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court therein had

totally discarded the opinion / Report of the Expert Valuer who had

valued the acquired properties and submitted his Report. The Report of

the Expert was discarded on the ground that, his opinion was not

binding. It is observed that, “the objection regarding acceptance of

valuation report cannot be taken on the ground that prior notice was

not given by the valuer to the respondents before taking inspection. It

will have to be observed that, the said expert was not a Court

Commissioner nor he was under direction by any competent authority

to value the land. Question of giving notice to the other side would

then only arise but when he was engaged by the claimants to value their

land / property, he was under no obligation to issue prior notice to the

respondents.” It is further observed that, “the evidence was not led by

the respondents to disprove the valuation reports, and therefore, there

was no hurdle to accept the reports.”


5.    In view of the above submission by the learned Advocate for the

Appellant, the issue for consideration of this Court is in respect of the

enhancement for the fruit bearing trees. As per the Award, there were 1

Mango, 3 Ber, 7 Guava and 8 Lemon trees in the acquired land. The

Appellant claimed compensation for the said trees. The Appellant relied

on the evidence of Valuer, who was examined before the learned

Reference Court below Exh.15. In his evidence Affidavit, he stated that,
                                 5                          FA482/2018
he was possessing the educational qualification of M. Sc. and Ph. D. in

Horticulture and had experience in that field. He further stated that, on

the basis of his experience and after considering the age, the girth,

market rate, quality of soil etc., he valued the trees. The Valuer was

subjected to the cross-examination by the Respondents. It has come in

his cross-examination that, the methodology adopted by an Agricultural

Land Valuer and that adopted by a Horticulture Expert are different.

His Certificate was as Agricultural Land Valuer. Exh.19 is the Certificate

showing the Valuer as ‘Approved Valuer’ for the category ‘Agricultural

Lands’. Though it has come in his evidence that, Exh.25 was the

Certificate as ‘Horticulture Expert’, perusal of the same shows that, it

was the Report of Valuation for Horticultural Plants issued by the Valuer

dated 20.06.2008 for the Appellant. Suggestion is given that, he did not

possess the Certificate as the Horticulture Expert. He admitted that, he

had not submitted the certificate as the Horticulture Expert issued by the

Food Institute. This evidence on record indicates that, the Valuer was

the Approved Valuer for the agricultural lands and there is no evidence

to show that, he was the Horticulture Expert, though there is a copy of

Certificate of Ph.D. in the horticulture.



6.    The evidence of this Valuer in the evidence Affidavit and in the

cross-examination in respect of valuation is contrary. He admitted in the

cross-examination that, he had not verified / examined each and every
                                6                            FA482/2018
tree before submitting the Valuation Report. He further admitted that,

there was no reference in respect of height, girth etc. of the trees in the

Valuation Report.    He further admitted that, he had not taken into

consideration the rates published by the Pachora Agricultural Produce

Market Committee. With this evidence of the Valuer, the Valuer’s Report

cannot form the basis for enhancement of the compensation for fruit

bearing trees. When it is clear from his evidence that, he did not

personally examine each and every trees, his report cannot be given

much credence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the above

referred Judgment of this Court will not be of any assistance to the

Appellant. The learned Reference Court by considering the evidence of

the Valuer observed that, in view of the admissions given by the Valuer,

it would not be proper to rely on the Valuation Report. Considering the

evidence of the Valuer, as discussed above, no fault can be found with

the said observations recorded by the learned Reference Court.


7.    There is no other evidence brought on record by the Claimant,

except the Valuer, to prove the income from the trees. As is evident from

the observations recorded in paragraphs 19, 20, and 21, the learned

Reference Court computed the value of the Mango tree on the basis of

the Judgment and Award passed in the connected Land Reference cases

and the Chart in Paragraph – 20 of the Judgment of the learned

Reference Court shows that, the computation was made on the basis of

the Government Resolution and the rates from the APMC. The learned
                                  7                        FA482/2018
Reference Court considered the Award in respect of the trees.        The

observations by the learned Reference Court show that, except the

Mango tree, the other trees were small trees i.e. they were not the fruit

bearing trees, and therefore did not grant any enhancement in the

compensation for 3 Ber, 8 Lemon and 7 Guava trees. The enhanced

compensation is determined for 1 Mango Tree.         In this view of the

matter, the determination of the enhanced compensation by the learned

Reference Court in respect of 1 Mango Tree and no enhancement for the

aforesaid Ber, Guava and Lemon trees cannot be faulted.



8.       In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the Appeal

and the same deserves dismissal. Hence, the following order.


                                      ORDER


(i)      The First Appeal is dismissed.


(ii)     The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference
Court.



                                              ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )

GGP