The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation based on the evidence of the land being irrigated, and the reference proceedings were filed within the period of limitation.

JUDGMENT

Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J. - Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

2. Admit. Shri A.M. Kadukar, learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Shri Kadu, learned counsel, waives notice for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 08/09/2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara in Land Acquisition Case No. 31/2007 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the reference filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) mainly on the ground of bar of limitation. The appellant/claimant in this Appeal has raised the issue with regard to enhancement in compensation so also the finding with regard to bar of limitation.

4. Shortly stated the appellant was the owner of land situated at Gat No. 27 admeasuring 3.75 hectares at Village Kholapur, District Bhandara (hereinafter referred to as “subject land”). The subject land of the appellant came to be acquired by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act which was published in official gazette on 09/09/1988 for the submergence of Indira Gose Khurd Project. The date of notification under Section 9 of the Act is 25/02/1999 and the date of receipt of notice to the appellant under Section 12 of the Act is 20/08/2005 and the award came to be passed on 05/02/2001. The learned Special Land Acquisition Officer (“SLAO”) fixed the market rate of the acquired land @ Rs. 83,195/- per hectare and awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,11,981/-. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant/claimant filed reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Act before the SLAO on 21/09/2005. It is the grievance of the appellant in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act that the respondents have awarded Rs. 1,58,307/- per hectare to Gat No. 63, and therefore, the land of the appellant being similarly situated, he should have been given the same rate for his land. He has also claimed compensation of Rs. 8,05,000/- towards various trees standing on his land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The claimant accordingly demanded enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 10,86,670/- after deducting the amount of compensation received by him of Rs. 3,11,981/-.

5. In response to the notice issued by the Reference Court, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed the written statement below Exh. 9 thereby resisted the claim of the appellant for enhancement in compensation. The respondents in para 3 of the written statement have admitted that the respondents have awarded Rs. 1,58,307/- per hectare in respect of Gat No. 63 of Dayaram Gondane as his land being irrigated one and the land of the appellant on the contrary is non-irrigated land. It is also stated that the LAO has granted fair and reasonable compensation towards trees standing on the subject land. The learned Reference Court framed the following issues below Exh. 12:

1. Does the petitioner prove that the amount of compensation of acquired land determined by the SLAO in an award is insufficient and grossly inadequate?

2. Is petitioner entitled for enhanced amount of compensation, statutory benefit, as sought?

3. What award?

6. The claimant examined himself as PW1 below Exh. 28 and reiterated his pleadings in the petition. The respondents examined Ku. Sushma Sitaram Irpate-Talathi, Borgaon (Bk.).

7. The following documents have been brought on record by the parties:

• Copy of award at Exh. 29

• E-Statements at Exh. 30

• Notice under Section 9 of the Act at Exh. 31

• Test certificate for ELCB + MCB at Exh. 32.

• Electricity Bill issued by MSEB dated 27/01/1997 at Exh. 33

• Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act at Exh. 34

• 7/12 extract at Exh. 35

• 7/12 extract at Exh. 36

8. The learned Judge of the Reference Court on appreciation of evidence recorded the finding that the reference filed by the claimant is beyond the period of limitation and the appellant has failed to prove the existence