Maharashtra: Tree Once Valued at ₹1 Crore Found Worth Just ₹10,981, Railways move to Bombay HC to Seek Refund
Maharashtra: Tree Once Valued at ₹1 Crore Found Worth Just ₹10,981, Railways move to Bombay HC to Seek Refund
Railways move Bombay HC to recover ₹50 lakh interim payout after sandalwood misidentification
A compensation battle over a century-old tree in Yavatmal has taken a dramatic twist, after a tree once valued at ₹1 crore was found to be worth only ₹10,981. The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court is now hearing the Railways’ plea to recover ₹50 lakh already withdrawn by the farmer’s family as interim relief.
The dispute began in 2018, when land belonging to Keshav Tukaram Shinde, a farmer from Kharshi village in Pusad taluka, was acquired for the Wardha-Yavatmal-Pusad-Nanded railway line project. Among the assets on his land was a century-old tree, identified in official records as red sandalwood, a rare and highly valued species. Relying on these documents, the High Court in April this year ordered the Railways to pay ₹1 crore compensation, of which ₹50 lakh was released to the Shinde family.
However, the Yavatmal Forest Division sought a scientific evaluation from the Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bengaluru. Their report revealed that the tree was not red sandalwood (Pterocarpus santalinus), but Bijasal (Pterocarpus marsupium), a common deciduous species also known as Malabar kino. A subsequent valuation pegged its worth at just ₹10,981.
The Shinde family, including the 94-year-old farmer and his five sons, had earlier argued that their compensation claims were delayed and ignored for years, despite repeated follow-ups with the District Collector, Forest Department, Railways, and Irrigation Department. Their case gained momentum after official surveys and forest records identified the tree as rare sandalwood.
The fresh revelation has put the spotlight on serious lapses in official verification, which led to an inflated court-ordered payout. While the Railways now seeks a refund, the farmer’s lawyer has maintained that the error lay with government officials, not the farmer, and that the family should not be penalised for relying on official records.
