JUDGMENT :

K.K. SONAWANE, J.

1. The instant appeals call-in-question the validity and legality of the impugned Judgment and Award rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in LAR No. 691 of 2005 dated 21-07-2017 filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”).

2. The points of controversy in both these appeals are centered on the issue of valuation of the land under acquisition, therefore, these allied appeals are dealt with together for its adjudication on merit by this common Judgment.

3. The factual aspects relevant to the present appeals sans unnecessary details are that the land Gut No. 48 admeasuring 4H. 12 R located at village Golwadi, Taluka and District Aurangabad belonging to the appellants-claimants in the First Appeal No. 489 of 2020, was placed under acquisition for industrial, commercial and residential development of Waluj Mahanagar, a township Project as promulgated under development plan of CIDCO, Aurangabad. The requisite declaration under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 (“Act of 1966”) came to be published in official Gazette on 10-12-1998. After compliance of procedural formalities, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (“SLAO”) proceeded to make the award as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. The SLAO offered the market price for acquired @ Rs. 2,75,000/- per hectare. The SLAO also calculated the value of trees under acquisition @ Rs. 1,12,995/- for both 35 Coconut trees and 51 Guava trees. The land owners-original claimants did not accept the market value of land and trees determined by the SLAO. Therefore, they accepted the compensation amount under protest and proceeded to file Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for indulgence of the Court to fix the market value of their acquired land and trees.

4. The learned Reference Court dealt with the petition preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount. The claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence on record to prove their claim. The learned Reference Court, on appreciation of factual aspects of the matter in regard to quality, fertility, location, potentiality etc. of the acquired land in the light of evidence adduced on record, allowed the enhancement of compensation to some extent in favour of claimants. The learned Reference Court calculated the market price @ Rs. 21,000/- per R for the land under acquisition. The Reference Court also calculated the valuation of trees @ Rs. 14,03,347/- on the basis of claimants valuer report. Accordingly, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Petition filed by the claimants’ under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. But, the Acquiring Body - CIDCO did not satisfy with the market value assessed by the Reference Court for acquired land as well as trees of the claimants. In the aftermath, the Acquiring Body - CIDCO rushed to this Court and filed the present appeal by resorting to remedy under Section 54 of the Act of 1894, to redress its grievance. The appellant-CIDCO cast the allegation of exorbitant and excessive compensation amount awarded in favour of claimants by the learned Reference Court.

5. The claimants-land owners also simultaneously knocked the door of this Court and preferred the First Appeal No. 489 of 2020 to ventilate their dissatisfaction about the market price of land calculated by the learned Reference Court. According to claimants, the learned Reference Court ought to have fixed the market price of their land @ Rs. 25,000/- per R instead of Rs. 21,000/- per R. Be that as it may, both these appeals are placed before this Court for its adjudication on merit.

6. The learned counsel Mr. Bajaj for appellant-CIDCO authority vehemently submits that the impugned Judgment and Award of learned Reference Court is erroneous, imperfect and not as per the provisions of law. The learned Reference Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspec