The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the income capitalization method and specific valuation methods for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court's decision also emphasized the importance of considering relevant factors and evidence in quantifying compensation for land and fruit bearing trees.

JUDGMENT

G.A. Sanap, J. - The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.11.2008 passed in LAC No.738/2006 has come before this Court in appeal. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal (Reference Court) had partly allowed the reference filed by the appellant and awarded the enhanced compensation of Rs.33,68,720/-.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows:-

The appellant was the owner of the land bearing Gat No.82 area 4.31 H.R situated at village Mouja Kohli, Taluka Babhulgao, District Yavatmal. The said land was acquired by the respondents for Bembla Project vide LAC No.2/47/2002-03. The notification, was published on 5.06.2003, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1894), followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 dated 22.09.2005. The award came to be passed on 22.09.2005 and total compensation of Rs.20,29,256/- was awarded for the agriculture land and for fruit bearing trees. The appellant accepted the compensation under protest.

3. According to the appellant, the compensation awarded for the land and fruit bearing trees was meager, inadequate and insufficient. It is the case of the appellant that the factors such as fertility of the soil, prominent and advantageous location of the land, potential for commercial crops, actual market value, age and condition of trees and other relevant factors need to be considered while quantifying the compensation. The market value of the land in question was required to be determined by making thorough inquiry. There must be legally admissible evidence and scientific material to quantify the compensation of such land with fruit bearing trees. The comparable sale instances and the yearly income needs to be evaluated. The land of the appellant was irrigated land. The appellant had planted the fruit trees of different varieties. The age of the same on the date of notification under Section 4, was 9 years. The Land Acquisition Officer has not taken the above facts and circumstances into consideration while quantifying the compensation of the land and the fruit bearing trees. The appellant therefore, made a reference and claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.20,34,333/- being the market value of the land and Rs.5,46,20,000/- being the value of the fruit bearing trees.

4. The respondents opposed the reference. The respondents denied the material facts pleaded by the appellant in the reference. According to the respondents, the Land Acquisition Officer had granted opportunity of hearing to the appellant to substantiate his claim. The claim put forth by the appellant, at the stage of inquiry was considered. The Land Acquisition Officer has determined the market value of the land and the trees on the basis of the material available on record. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just, proper and reasonable. According to the respondents, the enhanced compensation claimed by the appellant was excessive and exorbitant.

5. The appellant examined himself as PW-1. PW-2 examined by the appellant is Dr. K.U. Sanghvi, an expert in the valuation of the trees. The appellant relied upon number of documents. The Reference Court as stated above, partly allowed the reference. The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.33,68,720/-, with the direction to deduct the amount of compensation already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and accepted by the appellant.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the appellant has come before this Court.

7. We have heard Shri R.S. Nagpure, learned Advocate for appellant, Smt. Sangita Jachak, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Advocate for the respondent No.4. We have perused the record and proceedings.

8. In view of the facts of the appeal, following point falls for determination:-

Whether the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just, proper and reasonable?

9.