New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) The Supreme Court Thursday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order which had rejected the claim in respect of 100 mango trees at the rate of Rs 1,000 per tree in a land acquisition proceeding.

The apex court noted that the reference court had awarded the claim with respect to mango trees at the rate of Rs 1,000 per tree but the high court had rejected it after appreciating the evidence and observing that the claimant had failed to produce satisfactory evidence establishing existence of 100 mango trees.

Also Read | ‘Emergency Landing Facilities To Be Developed at 19 Other Places in India To Strengthen Security’, Says Nitin Gadkari.

“After going through the finding of fact recorded by the high court, we find no reason to interfere,” a bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and A S Oka said in its verdict.

The top court delivered is judgement on a plea challenging the October 2015 verdict of the high court which had determined the compensation payable to the appellant in reference to the acquisition proceedings which were initiated in 1997 in Washim district.

Also Read | Cattle Lifter Leopard Trapped by Wildlife Protection Department in Jammu and Kashmir's Ganderbal District.

The high court had said that the claimant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs one lakh per hectare for land measuring over seven hectares out of the acquired land of over nine hectares.

It had said the claimant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 3,000 per tree for 554 orange trees, Rs 300 per tree for 327 firewood trees and Rs 500 per tree for 400 Sindhi trees.

The high court had also held that claimant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 250 per tree for 30 berry trees.

It, however, the rejected the claim in respect of 100 mango trees at the rate of Rs 1,000 per tree, as was awarded by the reference court.

During the arguments before the top court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that compensation at Rs one lakh per hectare awarded by the high court was not adequate and the findings recorded rejecting the claim in respect of 100 mango trees needs to be interfered by the apex court.

The counsel appearing for the concerned corporation said that compensation awarded was fair and it needs no further indulgence.

He said since there was no evidence on record establishing existence of 100 mango trees as claimed on the date when acquisition proceedings were initiated in August 1997, the claim was rightly rejected by the high court.

“After we have heard counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs one lakh per hectare as awarded by the high court in the impugned judgement is a fair compensation duly supported by the material on record and that needs no interference from this court,” the bench said.

It, however, said the appellant is entitled for compensation for two hectares of land, in respect of which compensation has not been awarded, at the rate of Rs one lakh per hectare.

“Consequently, the appeals partly succeed and accordingly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to compensation at Rs one lakh per hectare for the land admeasuring two hectares situated at ….,” it said.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)