High Court
Facts
1 FA 1281.24+group final.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.1281 OF 20241.Navnath Wamanrao Kulkarni,age 64 years, Occ. Agri,R/o Govind Nagar, Beed.2.Madhukar Wamanrao Kulkarni,age 62 years, Occ. Agri,R/o Pachpakhdi, Thane.Appellants. (orig claimants)VERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Beed.2.The Executive Engineer,Beed Irrigation Division, Beed.Respondents (orig def. 1 & 2)…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1276 OF 2024Maltibai Navnath Kulkarni,age 58 years, Occ. Agri,R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.Appellant (orig claimant)VERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Beed.2.The Executive Engineer,Beed Irrigation Division, Beed.Respondents (orig def. 1 & 2)…WITH 2 FA 1281.24+group final.odtFIRST APPEAL NO.1277 OF 2024Vinayak Navnath Kulkarni,age 35 yrs, Occ. Agri,R/o. Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.Appellant (orig claimant)VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed.2.The Executive Engineer,Beed Irrigation Division, Beed. Respondents (orig. def. 1 & 2)… WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2024Yanka Babu Survase,age 65 yrs, Occ. Agri,R/o. Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.Appellant (orig claimant)VERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Beed.2.The Executive Engineer,Beed Irrigation Division, Beed.Respondents (orig def. 1 & 2) ... WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2024Dwarakabai Waman Kulkarni Dead,Through L.Rs.1.Navnath Wamanrao Kuklkarni,age 64 yrs, Occ. Agri,R/o.Govind Nagar, Beed.At present Kumbhari, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 3 FA 1281.24+group final.odt2.Madhukar Wamanrao Kulkarni,age 62 yrs, Occ. Agri, r/o as above.At present R/o Pachpakhadi, Thane.3.Anuradha Govindrao Bhalerao,age 60 yrs, Occ. Agri,R/o Sirasdevi, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.Appellants (orig claimant)VERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Beed.2.The Executive Engineer,Beed Irrigation Division, Beed.Respondents (orig def. 1 & 2)… WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1280 OF 2024Hemlata Madhukar Kulkarni,age 52 yrs, Occ. Agri,R/o Pachpakhadi, Thane Dist. Thane.Appellant (orig claimant)VERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Beed.2.The Executive Engineer,Beed Irrigation Division, Beed.Respondents (orig def. 1 & 2)...Advocate for Appellants : Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar SeniorAdvocate i/b Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar AGP for Respondent no.1: Mr. D B BhangeAdvocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. M.C. Swami … 4 FA 1281.24+group final.odtCORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.Reserved on : March 12, 2025.Decided on : May 05, 2025.…FINAL ORDER :-1.This group of first appeals takes exception to thecommon judgment and award dated 3.2.2024 passed by theReference court / Civil Judge S.D. Beed in L.A.R.No.823 of2014 with companion five matters.2.Appellants are the original claimants. Their landswere acquired in pursuance to Preliminary Notification dated27.07.2005 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actfor construction of storage tank i.e. Satrapotra Medium Project.Final Award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act hasbeen passed on 8.12.2008. Land Acquisition Officerdetermined compensation in the range of Rs.450/- to Rs.820/-per R depending upon quality and amenities of the land.Aggrieved claimants filed references under section 18 of theLand Acquisition Act seeking enhanced compensation @Rs.7,500/- per R and also claimed enhanced compensationtowards well, pipeline and fruit bearing trees.3.Reference Court, after recording evidence, partlyallowed the References and fixed compensation @ Rs.3,000/-per R for irrigated land and Rs.2,000/- per R for Jirayat lands.However, compensation as awarded by LAO towards well inland gat no.199, 200 and 453 is directed to be deducted fromtotal amount of compensation.
Legal Reasoning
7 FA 1281.24+group final.odtand others Vs. Palapandla Chinna Gangappa and Ors. reportedin AIR online 2001 AP 26 [Civil Revision Petition No.4678 of1999] so also the judgment of this Court in case of NarayanYashwanta Kapse Vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in2021 (1) ALL MR 331, Chandaba w/o Gangaram Pauyed Vs.State of Maharashtra and others reported in [2023 (4) Mh.L.J.292].9.Per contra, Mr. Swami, learned advocate appearingfor respondent no.2 submits that the Reference Court assessedcompensation on due appreciation of evidence as per settledlegal position. He would submit that claimants relied upon theprevious award passed in L.A.R.No.411 of 2015, which hasattained the finality. Consequently, by applying the rule ofparity, Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.3,000/-per R for irrigated land and Rs.2000/- per R for Dry land,although on the basis of evidence tendered into service by theclaimants, Reference Court had concluded that true marketvalue of acquired land was Rs.1,345/- per R.10.Having considered the submissions advanced,following points arises for determination in these appeals :-i.Whether the Reference Court is justified infixing the compensation for acquired land @Rs.3,000/- for Bagayat land and Rs.2,000/-for Jirayat land ?ii.Whether the Reference Court is justified inclassifying land gat no.453 as Jirayat land ? 8 FA 1281.24+group final.odtiii.Whether the Reference Court is justified indirecting deduction of compensation awardedtowards well and pipe line from compensationpayable to the claimants ?iv.Whether the irrigated lands are to be valueddouble the value of Jirayat land ?v.Whether the claimants are entitled forenhanced compensation towards the trees orfruit bearing trees, as claimed ?11.First point pertains to fixing market value of theacquired land. Claimants in order to bring home market valueof the acquired land on the date of preliminary notificationrelied upon three sale instances, which are placed at Exhibit-43, 44 and 45. The sale instance at Exhibit 43 is from villageMurshidpur, whereas lands acquired are from villageKumbhari. Admittedly, sale instance at Exhibit-44 and 45 arefrom village Kumbhari and would be relevant for deciding theactual market value of the acquired land. The reference Courtconsidered both the sale instances and found that the sale-deedat Exhibit-44 dated 24.6.2003 pertains to 43R Jirayat Land. Itdepict rate of the land as Rs.1744/- per R. After adding theincrease @ 5.5% p.a. value of the aforesaid land as on the dateof preliminary notification is determined to Rs.1,934/- per R.Second sale instance pertains to only 7R Jirayat Land. Theevidence depicts that it was purchased by adjacent land holder.As per consideration amount, rate of the land can be workedout to Rs.2,857/- per R and after adding the increase @ 5.5% 9 FA 1281.24+group final.odtp.a., value of the land is determined to Rs.3,014/- per R on thedate of preliminary notification. According to Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate, Reference Courtought to have relied upon the sale instance Exhibit-45 andworked out market value of the acquired land. However,Reference Court preferred sale instance at Exhibit 44 over saleinstance at Exhibit-45 for the reason that sale instance atExhibit-44 is more proximate to the date of preliminarynotification. Legally speaking, no fault can be found in theapproach of the Reference Court while relying upon the saleinstance at Exhibit-44 considering proximity to the date ofnotification. One more aspect highlighted by the ReferenceCourt is the sale instance at Exhibit-45 which depicts that itwas purchased by the adjacent land holder. Possibility that heoffered higher price cannot be ruled out. Further, sale instanceat Exhibit 45 is only for small pice of 7R land, whereas the saleinstance at exhibit 44 is for 43R land, the Reference Court hastherefore rightly relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 44.Apart-from the aforesaid aspects, admittedly, LAR No.411 of2015 arising out of the same acquisition has been decided, thecopy of judgment has been filed on record, in which rate ofJirayat Land is determined at Rs.2,000/- per R and forirrigated land Rs.3,000/- per R as on date of preliminarynotification. 12.At this stage, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senioradvocate submits that, since acquired lands are irrigated,Reference Court ought to have granted double rate than Jirayat 10 FA 1281.24+group final.odtland. However, there is no reason to accept such contention.Claimants have failed to bring on record any material thatacquired land had perennial irrigation facility. The evidence onrecord would indicate that irrigation facility like well or bore-well was available in acquired land, but crop pattern does notdisclose perennial irrigation. Further, the compensation isassessed by the Reference Court relying upon previous judicialpronouncements as to the rate of acquisition. The ReferenceCourt observed that earlier award attained finality. In thatview of the matter, once there is judicial pronouncementdetermining rate of acquired land from the same acquisition,there is no reason to deviate from the same, particularly, inabsence of any material on record that compels the Court to re-determine the rate of acquired land. Therefore, this Court donot find any reason to interfere with the finding recorded bythe Reference Court as to the rate of the acquired land.13.Second contention raised by the claimants is that,land gat no.453 has been wrongly classified as Jirayat Land.Perusal of the E-Statement shows that compensation for bore-well has been awarded for land gat no.453. Apparently,irrigation facility was available in the said land. Therefore, asrightly pointed out by the learned senior advocate appearingfor the appellant, land gat no.453 ought to have beenconsidered in group of irrigated land along with the land gatno.199, 200 and 288. There is no plausible reason inimpugned judgment for excluding the land gat no.453 from thegroup of irrigated lands. Once the LAO awarded compensation 11 FA 1281.24+group final.odttowards bore-well, existence of bore-well and irrigation facilitycannot be ignored. Reference Court has not given plausiblereason for classifying the land gat no.453 as Jirayat Land. Inthat view of the matter, this Court finds force in the contentionof the appellant that land gat no.453 needs to be treated asirrigated land.14.Third contention raised on behalf of the appellantis that, Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the compensationtowards well, pipeline in his award. However, Reference Courterroneously directed to deduct the compensation awardedtowards those facilities. Perusal of clause No.6 of operativepart of the impugned judgment shows that Reference Courtdirected to deduct compensation as awarded by the LandAcquisition Officer towards well in land gat no.199, 200 and453. In paragraph no.52 of the judgment, Reference Courtobserved that one cannot claim separate compensation inrespect of well when he has been granted compensation of theacquired land by holding it as “irrigated land”. Claimants havereceived the compensation in respect of well situated in landgat no.199, 200, 453 and 288, and the same is liable to bededucted from total compensation amount payable to theclaimant in respect of acquired land gat nos.199, 200 and 453in which well is situated. Aforesaid approach of the ReferenceCourt cannot be countenanced. Once the L.A.O. determinedthe compensation taking into account the relevant factors andpassed an award in that regard, Reference Court cannot deductthe compensation already awarded by the L.A.O. It cannot be 12 FA 1281.24+group final.odtignored that the appellants/claimants must have incurredexpenses for construction of the well and installation ofequipment for irrigation. Quantification of the compensationfor said losses will have to be independently considered. TheL.A.O. has rightly considered input cost while determiningcompensation on that count. Reference Court appears to havecommitted error while applying observations made in case ofO. Janardhan Reddy and others Vs. Spl. Deputy Collector, LAUnit IV LMD, Karimnagar A.P. and others(MANU/SC/0038/1995).15.In that view of the matter, direction of theReference Court to deduct the compensation granted towardswell and irrigation facility as incorporated in clause no.5 of theoperative part cannot be sustained.16.Now, turning to the next question as tocompensation towards the fruit bearing trees. The LandAcquisition Officer recorded existence of fruit bearing trees insuit lands which are subject matter of LAR Nos.823 of 2014,825 of 2014, 1747 of 2017 and also awarded somecompensation towards valuation of the trees as noted duringjoint measurement. The L.A.O. in his award observed thatreport as to valuation of fruit bearing trees was called from theSuperintending Agriculture Officer, Beed. Consolidated valueof per tree is determined by him. Accordingly, compensationhas been awarded. Reference Court observed that evidenceadduced by the claimants as regards to valuation of fruit 13 FA 1281.24+group final.odtbearing trees is not acceptable due to inconsistencies as to dateof inspection by the expert valuer and fact that notice beforesuch inspection was not served upon the Government.Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocate appearing for theappellants would submit that claimants have relied uponvaluation report prepared by Mr. V.M. Ghogare, an expert, whohad personally visited the fields in the month of October, 2005and submitted his valuation report of fruit bearing trees inmonth of November 2005 standing in acquired lands. Byinviting attention of this Court to experts report, he submitsthat it notes age, height, approximate yield and averageincome. According to him, valuation is made by expert as perA.E Miram’s Method and guidelines as released by State. SinceMr. Ghogare expired prior to recording of evidence, claimantshave relied upon oral evidence of his son, who placed onrecord report identifying his signature, so also relied upondeposition of Mr. Nandkumar Patil CW-3, who himself is anexpert and explained details incorporated in Mr Ghogare’sreport. According to Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned ReferenceCourt discarded crucial evidence without justifiable reasons. 17.Per contra, Mr. Swami learned advocate foracquiring body supports the reasons as stated in the impugnedorder.18.The Supreme Court of India in Case of ChindhaFakira Patil (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 787 observed that 14 FA 1281.24+group final.odtvaluation of the fruit bearing trees, if expert witness/consultantin agriculture and horticulture has personally visited theacquired land and gave details of the trees standing ondifferent parts of the land, their present and future age,condition, height, width, spread and annual fruit productioncapacity, which is supported by marked rates of the fruits, fixedby the Agriculture and Horticulture Department of the State, itcan be accepted without expert’s evidence as to valuation.19.In case of Navnath and others Vs. State ofMaharashtra reported in (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 480,the Supreme Court in paragraph no.40 has observed that“indisputably valuation of agriculture on the one hand andvaluation of the orchard and forest on the other would standon different footings. Whereas in the former case, the knownlegal principles, particularly, with reference to exemplars willhave to be applied, in the latter a different principle, namely,multiplier of eight or ten, as the case may be, on the basis ofmultiplicand, namely, yield from the trees or plantation wouldbe applicable.20.In case of Shaikh Imambi Vs. Special DeputyCollector (Land Acquisition) Telegu Ganga Project reported(2011) 11 SCC 639 while deciding valuation of lime trees,multiplier ‘10’ has been approved as standard multiplier.21.In light of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is tobe considered, if claimants have established their case for 15 FA 1281.24+group final.odtenhanced compensation towards fruit bearing trees on thebasis of evidence tendered into service. It can be observed that,existence of fruit bearing trees, it’s type and number can not bedisputed as the same is part and parcel of the E-statementappended to the award passed by the L.A.O. Although, L.A.O.records in award that he relied on report received from theDistrict Superintending Agriculture officer for valuation offruit bearing trees, there is nothing on record to find outmethod adopted for valuation. The opinion or valuation reportrelied by respondent is not made part of award or evidencetendered before Reference court. On the other hand, claimantshave relied upon expert evidence in the form of report of Mr.V.M. Ghogare. His report indicates that he made valuation onthe basis of average annual yield applying multiplier looking tothe age of trees. Multiplier of ‘12.032’ is applied for mangotrees, multiplier of ‘8.804’ is applied for pomegranate trees andmultiplier of ‘10’ is applied to Ber trees. Claimants haveexamined Mr. Virender Ghogare, who stated that expert’sreport has been prepared and signed by his father. Claimantshave further relied upon evidence of Mr. Nandkumar Patil, whoexplained contents of report being the expert and deposedabout its technical correctness. 22.Admittedly, Mr. Ghogare expired in the year 2019,therefore, he was not available for examination before theCourt. Mr. Nandkumar Patil explained that valuation of fruitbearing trees has been made by Mr. Ghogare on the basis ofcircular issued by the Maharashtra State in the year 1990, 16 FA 1281.24+group final.odtwhich stipulates guidelines for valuation of fruit bearing treesin the matter of acquisition of the land. Copy of such circulardated 27.12.1997 is made available for perusal of this Court. Itis taken on record by consent of parties and marked ‘X’ foridentification. The circular provides method for estimation ofaverage annual yield for different fruit bearing trees dependingupon its age and type. Aforesaid evidence is definitelyacceptable to the extent of existence of trees, it’smeasurements, age and market value of the fruits. ReferenceCourt could not have out-rightly rejected experts report onerroneous counts.23.Now coming to the comparative analysis ofexpert’s report relied by the claimants and circular issued bythe State Government dated 27.12.1990 prescribing averageyield per tree for particular fruit. The extract which is relevantfor purposes present case reads thus :-Average Yield Statement of Fruit Trees (Irrigated Fruit Crops)SrNo.Name of FruitEarly BearingFull BearingLife Period in YearsAverage Yield pertreeAge inYearAverageYield pertree1234561.Mango(Country) age (8 to 12)400 to 600 Fruits(75 to 100 kgs.)13onwards800 to 1600Fruits (150to 250 kgs.)70 to 902.Pomegranateage (3 to 5)20 to 50 fruits (3to 7 kgs.7onwards60 to 120fruits ( 15 to 30kgs.20 to 303.Custard Appleage (4 to 6)30 to 50 FruitNuts7onwards60 to 90Fruit Nuts15 to 204.Tamarindage (10 t0 15)20 to 40 kgs16onwards60 to 100kgs.80 to 100 17 FA 1281.24+group final.odt24.Per contra, the expert report relied upon by theclaimants considers the average fruit bearing for mango tree as600 kgs per anum, for pomegranate aged about 5 years as 30kgs and for pomegranates aged about 3 years @ 8 kg. Forcustard apple 40 fruits per tree. There is vast difference inaverage yield considered in expert report relied upon by theclaimants and the circular dated 27.12.1990 issued by theState of Maharashtra. The claimants witness Mr. Nandkishorstated that valuation in the report of Mr. V.M. Ghogare is on thebasis of aforesaid circular. However, this Court finds thataverage yield prescribed in the report of Mr. Ghogare is muchmore escalated than prescribed in circular which needs to bebrought down to match with circular. Further, the report of Mr.V.M. Ghogare adopts multiplier in the range of 8 to 10. ThisCourt holds that in view of the law laid down by the SupremeCourt of India in case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singhand Another 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637, multiplier of 8 can beadopted for working out the loss to the claimants. Therefore,the compensation towards loss of fruit bearing trees i.e.mango, pomegranate and custard apple needs to be workedout considering the aforesaid factors. This Court, therefore,holds that claimants are entitled for compensation towardsfruit bearing trees as per following chart. 18 FA 1281.24+group final.odtFirst Appeal No :- 1281/2024 (LAR No. 823/2014)Navnath Wamanrao Kulkarni and Anr. VersusState of Maharashtra and Anr. Sr.No.Name of Tree Number of TreesAverage Yieldper treeAverage YieldPer Tree as perGovernmentCircular(27.12.1990)Multiplier as perJudgment ofSupreme Court incase of GurucharanSingh Rate asper Reportof Expertand APMCTotalValuationof TreeTotal bySLAO ascost ofTree.Total(7-8)1234567891.Mango (Country)3(age-23 years)800 to 1600Fruit(150 to 250kgs.200 kg.85/kg24000/-33,167/-Nil2.Pomegranate2500(Age-3 to 5 years)20 to 50Fruits(3 to 7 kgs.)5kg.811.50/kg11,50,000/-5,06,992/-6,43,008/-3.Ber30(Age- 11 years)20 to 40 kgs.40Kg84.50/kg43,200/-15,554/-27,646/-4.Ber31(Age-9 years)10 to 20 kgs.20kg84.50/kg22,320/-/-14,502/-7,818/-Total6,53,590/-Deduction @ 20% Asper Hon’ble SupremeCourt Judgment inthe matter ofChindha Fakira1,30,718/-Amount to be Paid5,22,872/- 19 FA 1281.24+group final.odtFirst Appeal No :- 1276/2024 LAR No. 825/2014Maltibai Navnath KulkarniSr.No.Name of FruitsNumber of TreesAverage Yieldper treeAverage YieldPer Tree as perGovernmentCircular(27.12.1990)Multiplier as perJudgment ofSupreme Court incase of GurucharanSingh Rate asper Reportof Expertand APMCTotalValuationof TreeTotal bySLAO ascost ofTree.Total1234567891.Ber 31(Age 16 years)20 to 40 kgs.40kg84.50/kg44,640/-NotGranted44,640/-2.Ber93(Age-10 years)10 to 20 kgs.20kg.84.50/kg66,960/-NotGranted66,960/-3.Ber69 Saplings------Total1,11,600/-Deduction @ 20% Asper Hon’ble SupremeCourt Judgment inthe matter ofChindha Fakira22,320Amount to be Paid89,280/- 20 FA 1281.24+group final.odtFirst Appeal No :- 1278/2024 (AR No. 1747 of 2014)Yanka Babu SurvaseSr.No.Name of FruitsNumber of TreesAverage YieldPer TreeAverage YieldPer Tree as perGovernmentCircular(27.12.1990)Multiplier as perJudgment ofSupreme Court incase of GurucharanSingh Rate asper Reportof Expertand APMCTotalValuationof TreeTotal bySLAO ascost ofTree.Total1234567891.Ber1(Age-18 years)20 to 40 kgs.40kg84/kg1280/-663/-617/-2.Kadulimb1(Age-9 years)25kg.810/kg2000/-409/-1591/-3.Custard Apple2(Age-10 years)60 to 90 FruitNuts90 Fruits83.20/perfruit4608/-513/-4095/-4.Tamarind2(Age-25 years)60 to 100100 kg820/kg32,000/-20,437/-11,563/-5.Tamarind1(Age-25 years)60 to 100100 kg.820/kg16,000/-20,437/-NilTotal17,866/-Deduction @ 20% Asper Hon’ble SupremeCourt Judgment inthe matter ofChindha Fakira3,573/-Amount to be Paid14,293/-25.In the aforesaid background, this court holds thatclaimants are entitle for compensation towards fruit bearingtrees as calculated in aforesaid paragraphs.26.Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocateappearing for appellants submits that Reference Courterroneously discarded valuation report regarding structure andPVC Pipe-line in LAR No.823 of 2014 and 825 of 2014.Apparently, claimants have relied upon evidence of one ShivajiDattatraya Ghodake, who states that Mr. Ramhari Bayaji 21 FA 1281.24+group final.odtGhodake was his cousin grandfather and he used to reside withhim. He was valuer. He identified hand writing of RamhariGhodake and submitted certificate of valuation at Exhibit-41,52 to 57. However, the person, who examined before theCourt is not the expert in the valuation. He is an advocate byprofession. He could not produce any evidence to show thatRamhari Ghodake was expert valuer or he had any occasion toknow about his work. On the basis of such evidence, valuationreport of Mr. R.B. Ghodake, alleged to have expired in the year2009 cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to showthat said valuer visited the field, took any photograph or somenotes as to his inspection. In this background, this Court donot find it safe to rely upon such a scanty evidence for grant ofcompensation towards valuation of well or pipeline in additionto what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer inhis award. In view of above, following order is passed :-O R D E R i.All First Appeals are partly allowed.ii.The amount of compensation in respect of well inthe land gat nos.199, 200 and 453 as determinedby the Land Acquisition Officer is restored.Similarly, compensation for land gut no.453 shallbe assessed as per group of irrigated lands @Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand) per R.iii.Claimants in L.A.R. No.823 of 2014, 825 of 2014and 1747 of 2014 are held entitled to theenhanced compensation of Rs.5,22,872/- 22 FA 1281.24+group final.odtRs.89,280/- and Rs.14,293/- respectively withstatutory benefits towards fruit bearing trees.iv.Compensation amount to be deposited in thisCourt within a period of six (6) months from thedate of this order.iv.First Appeals are accordingly disposed of. Pendingcivil applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) Judge....aaa/-(RF)
Arguments
5 FA 1281.24+group final.odt4.Aggrieved claimants filed present First Appealsseeking further enhancement of compensation towardsacquired land, amenities and fruit bearing trees.5.Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocatei/b Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar, learned advocate appearing for theappellants canvassed his submissions on five points. Hesubmits that claimants relied upon two sale instances videExhibit-44 and 45, which are pertaining to Jirayat land fromvillage Kumbhari i.e. same village. He points out that sale-deed dated 27.1.2004 Exhibit-45 depicts that 7R Jirayat landfrom village Kumbhari has been sold for Rs.20,000/-. As such,effective rate can be worked out to Rs.2,857/- per R. Further,there has to be addition/increase at least @ 5.5% p.a.Therefore, as on the date of preliminary notification, rate ofJirayat land ought to have been fixed @ Rs.3,014/- per R.However, Reference Court granted fixed rate of Rs.2,000/- perR for Jirayat land and Rs.3,000/- per R for irrigated landignoring material on record.6.Mr. Katneshwarkar would further submit thatalthough Reference Court rightly considered lands from gatnos.199, 200 and 288 to be irrigated, erroneously, excludedland from gat no.453 from group of irrigated land. By invitingattention of this Court to the contents of E-statement, he pointsout that compensation towards bore-well has been assessed forland gat no.453 which depicts that it is the irrigated. 6 FA 1281.24+group final.odt7.Mr. Katneshwarkar, would further submit thatL.A.O. had assessed and awarded compensation towards welland pipe-line. However, Reference Court erroneously directeddeduction of such compensation inconsistent with the legalposition. He would further submit that, while determiningvalue of irrigated land, it should be considered double thevalue of Jirayat land, but Reference Court restricted valuationof Jirayat land @ 1.5 times of Jirayat land, which is erroneous.He would further submit that, no compensation is awardedtowards fruit bearing trees although report of expert Mr.Ghogare has been placed on record, wherein detailed valuationis made for fruit bearing trees which were standing in theacquired lands.8.Mr. Katneshwarkar, in order to buttress hissubmissions, relies on observations of the Supreme Court incase of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer, Jalgaon reported in (2011) 10 SCC 787,Kasturi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 1SCC 354, Sabiha Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla(Dead) by L.Rs. And others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officerand others reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 595,Digambar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and othersreported in 2013 ALL SCR 2860, Radha Mudaliyar Vs. SpecialTahsildar (Land Acquisition) T.N.H. Board Dhanapooshanam VsSpecial Tahsildar (L.A.) Chennai and anr. reported in AIR 2011SC 54, so also the judgment of Division Bench of AndhraPradesh High Court in case of Somagutta Irappa Reddy (died)