JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. All the appeals have been filed by the original claimants challenging the Judgment and award passed by Reference Court in their respective petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. G. N. Chincholkar for appellants, learned AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 - State, and learned advocate Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy for respondent No.3.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellantsoriginal claimants in all the cases that, the point involved in these cases is that, the Reference Court has totally discarded the opinion / report given by the expert valuer who had valued the acquired properties and submitted his report. The said valuer was examined by the claimants, however his testimony has been discarded only on the ground that his opinion is not binding. Other technical issues were raised by the respondents, however it cannot be taken as a cogent reason to discard an expert's opinion. No evidence was led by the respondents to arrive at a contrary conclusion or to disprove the report given by the expert, and therefore, in all the cases the Reference Court ought to have granted compensation based upon the expert's opinion.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has relied on the decisions of this Court in, Nagnath s/o Dhondiba Nukulwad Versus The State of Maharashtra and others, (First Appeal No.693 of 2017, decided on 20-08-2018), Bandappa s/o Shantappa Jalkote Versus State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.1250 of 2009, decided on 06-10-2016), Kondiba s/o Yadavrao Rasegave Versus State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.868 of 2015, decided on 23-08-2016, and Venkati s/o Masnaji Susterphod Versus The State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.832 of 2014, decided on 24-01-2018). He submits that, all these decisions relate to very same acquisition proceedings and in these decisions, this Court has awarded enhanced compensation as per the valuation report submitted by the valuer. He submits that, applying these decisions, these appeals should also be allowed and compensation should be enhanced.

5. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents supported the reasons given by the Reference Court and submitted that, all the aspects were considered by the Reference Court. The expert who had allegedly assessed the acquired property and then given its valuation, had not given prior notice regarding his inspection of the properties to the acquiring body as well as concerned State officials so that they can remain present. The measurements have been taken in absence of respondents, and therefore, said report cannot be relied.

6. At the outset it can be seen from all the impugned Judgments that, though the expert P.W.2 was examined to prove his report regarding valuation of the acquired land yet the evidence of the valuer was brushed aside on the ground that his report cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The learned Reference Court has tried to replace that evidence with its own opinion without any evidence or base.

7. In Kondiba (F.A.No.868 of 2015) (supra), in paragraph No.2, it has been observed that :

"2. The sole basis for enhanced compensation is the expert report. The expert was cross-examined. The learned Civil Judge disbelieved the evidence of the expert but practically did not record any reason as to why he had disbelieved the deposition. The expert is a third party, ideally not interested in the claimant. In this case the expert was a Government approved one. His opinion, thus, should carry more weightage. In my view the learned Civil Judge committed serious error in disbelieving the expert's evidence. In a case of this nature, the Civil Judge ought to have believed the deposition of the expert and awarded compensation as per the expert's suggestion. The appeal should, therefore, succeed."

8. Similarly, in Bandappa (F.A.No.1250 of 2009), it has been observed that :

"7. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and the evidence which wa