1. There are two appeals for consideration, one filed by the claimants and the other by the State, both aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.04.2005 passed by the District Court at Akola (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Case No.78 of 2004. The claimants are aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the Reference Court and they seek further enhancement while the State has approached this Court contending that the enhancement granted by the Reference court to the claimants is not justified and that the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer deserves to be restored.

2. The land acquisition proceedings in the present case concern land at Gat No.126, mouza Dagadparwa, tahsil Barshitakli, district Akola, admeasuring 4 H 21 R for construction of water storage dam. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the present case was issued on 21.04.2000 and the section 6 notification under the said Act was issued on 03.05.2001. Pursuant to the completion of proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer , on 11.10.2002, the award was declared. The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.62,000/- per hectare for the land acquired and for the fruit bearing trees i.e. orange trees, lemon trees and a gauva tree, compensation was granted at specific rates, but no compensation was granted for mango trees or the well situated in the land in question. In this manner, total compensation of Rs.7,89,477/- was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants (appellants in First Appeal No.691 of 2005) preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the said Act, claiming enhanced compensation for land @ Rs.1 lakh per acre as also compensation for the well and mango trees with enhanced compensation for the orange, lemon and guava trees over and above the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award.

4. In support of their claim, the claimants examined six witnesses while the Land Acquisition Officer was examined on behalf of the State in support of the award. Amongst the witnesses for the claimants, were PW1 Sharad Umale, a retired Professor of Horticulture, who deposed in respect of the value of trees. PW4 was the claimant- appellant no.4 in First Appeal No. 691 of 2005, who deposed in respect of sale instances placed on record in support of the enhanced claim of compensation of the claimants. PW5 was the Circle Inspector Narayan Ingole, who deposed in respect of the location of the land and the village wherein the land was located in the context of adjoining villages and PW6 was the Market Inspector of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, who deposed in respect of the rates at which the fruits were sold at the relevant time. The map of the village and a map showing its location along with that of adjoining villages were exhibited at Exhs. 31 and 32.

5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2005, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the land to Rs.60,000/- per care and also granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the well located in the land. The compensation for the orange trees was increased from Rs.489/- per tree to Rs.7000/- per tree and for the lemon trees from Rs.1489/- per tree to Rs.6000/- per tree. The Reference Court also granted compensation for the mango trees, which the Land Acquisition Officer had denied. In this manner, the total compensation upon enhancement was held by the Reference Court to be Rs.90,41,077/-.

6. Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-appellants in First Appeal No.691 of 2005, submitted that the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court for the acquired land was insufficient and that there was ample material placed on record to justify the claim of the claimants