IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of witness examined the analysis thereof by Supreme Court in some other reference case arising from an independent acquisition notification issued in earlier point of time concerning another village/Taluka - Valuation report prepared by the same witness cannot be mechanically accepted as duly proved in all respect.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in First Appeal No.2536 of 2015, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-claimants against the decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), and enhanced the compensation amount for the lands acquired for the purpose of construction of Minor Irrigation Tank at Village Pimpri, Block Dambhurni, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

3. Briefly stated, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9th July, 1998, pursuant to which the land belonging to the respondents situated at Village Pimpri, Block Dambhurni, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra, was acquired for the stated public purpose. After following the necessary formalities, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 14th November, 2000, fixing the price at the rate of Rs.59,800/per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.1,500/per hectare for Potkharab land. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 14th May, 1996. The respondents, however, resorted to a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 19th September, 2015. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the respondents carried the matter in appeal before the High Court which, as aforesaid, came to be partly allowed and resulted in the compensation amount being enhanced.

4. For considering the issue involved in the present appeal, suffice it to observe that the respondents-claimants had relied on the Valuation Report dated 10th October, 1998, prepared by Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari. Besides relying on the said valuation report, the respondents had examined Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari as their witness to prove the same. The Reference Court adverted to the said evidence and noted as follows:

“11/There is contention of the claimants that the opponents have not given the compensation to the fruit bearing trees as per the fruits quality, quantity. To support their contentions, they have examined valuer of fruit bearing trees Dr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari and Dr. Kamalnayan Uttamchand Sanghavi in respective references. Witness deposed that he is well experienced in horticulture. They have produced the valuation report of fruit bearing trees to show the income of fruit bearing trees and rate of the fruit trees.

12/In L.A.R. No.354/03 the claimant submitted that in his land there were 65 Chiku trees, 1 mango tree and 678 custard apple trees. As per his pleadings, he valued per tree of Chiku Rs.1,500/mango Rs.10,000/and custard apple Rs.2,000/. The valuer has produced the report and he categorized custard apple tree in three categories. He has shown the valuation of per fruit tree custard apple Rs.7,358/, Rs.6,889/and Rs.6,420/, mango local Rs.21,600/ and Chiku Rs.4,648/.

13/In L.A.R. No.365/03 the claimants claimed that there were 2 mango trees and value of per mango tree was Rs.30,251/. The valuer has produced the report. He has submitted that mango trees were local and he has shown the value of each fruit tree and mango local Rs.30,250/.

14/If we perused the pleadings of the claimant in L.A.R. No.354/03 then value of each tree is contrary to the report of valuer and how the valuer made categories of custard apple, nothing is brought on record. The claimant has also produced the market rates of A.P.M.C., Jalgaon to show the rates in the year 1995-96.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. The Reference Court then proceeded to refer to the Government Resolution regarding average yield statement of fruit trees (irrigated fruit crops) and concluded as follows:

“17/Considering the abovesaid ratio, I fix the rates of frui