The valuer's expert opinion and evidence, along with the interpretation of previous judgments, influenced the Court's decision to grant enhanced compensation for the fruit bearing trees.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Giratkar, J.

The present appeal is against the judgment of reference Court in L.A.C. No. 459/2005.

2. The land owner challenged the award of Land Acquisition Officer in respect of acquisition of land of Gat No. 75 of Village Barad, Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal which was acquired for Bembla Projet. Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 82,222/- per hectare for 0.66 H.R. and Rs. 21,551/- per hectare for 2.63 H.R. Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation in respect of food bearing trees at the rate of Rs. 1360/- per tree for 682 sweet lime trees, Rs. 1296/- per tree for 30 guava trees, Rs. 483/- per tree for 10 lemon trees, Rs. 350/- for one orange tree and Rs. 515/- per tree for 7 berry trees. Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs. 6247/- for valuation of pipe line.

3. In the reference Court, land owner examined valuer Shri Subhash Ramrao Tayade. He has stated in his evidence that he personally went to the field of appellant, measured trees and opined that the appellant is entitled for compensation as stated below.

He was thoroughly cross-examined. In the cross-examination, he has stated that during his visit, he has compared JMR (Joint Measurement Report), Exhibit 41 and Exhibit 42. He has further stated that no difference was found in respect of age and number of trees as per the JMR. He has stated that he is an expert. As per his opinion, land owner is entitled for the rate as stated above.

4. The reference Court partly allowed the land acquisition case and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per hectare in respect of land acquired for Gat No. 75 for area 2 Hectare 63 Ares and at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per hectare in respect of land acquired for Gat No. 75 of 0 Hectare 66 Ares of Village Barad, Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal. Claim of land owner in respect of fruit bearing trees is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment of reference Court, the present appeal is filed.

5. Heard learned Advocate Shri Nakshane for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned judgment is not challenged by the respondents. Therefore, there is no dispute about the compensation granted for acquired land. Learned counsel has pointed out judgment of reference Court, more particularly, paragraph no. 10 of the judgment and submitted that reference Court has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra,2012 MhLJ 9 and therefore denied the compensation for fruit bearing trees. In support of his submissions, he pointed out following decisions.

(1) Pramilabai wd/o Manguji Ade and ors. State of Maharashtra and anr., (2018) 3 MhLJ 787

(2) Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) through Lrs. And ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC 325

(3) Chindhra Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2012) AIR SC 481 and

(4) Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 821/2006 (State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Ramkrishna s/o Tukaram Bhakre) and two other matters decided on 20-6-2019.

6. Learned counsel Shri Patil for the respondent no. 3 - acquiring body supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the valuer has not given the rate which were compared by him from exorbitant. Whatever the rates and details of trees (age, numbers etc.) given by the Land Acquisition Officer are perfectly legal and correct. Learned counsel has submitted that the reference Court has rightly relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra. There is no merit in the appeal, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.

7. Perused the evid