The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just, fair, and reasonable compensation for acquired land and fruit-bearing trees under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT

G. A. Sanap, J. - In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the Judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in LAC No.613/2005 decided on 04/04/2015 and corrected by order dated 05/08/2015 in MJC No.61/2015, whereby the learned Judge enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).

The respondent No.1 filed the Cross-Objection No.65/2017 being aggrieved by the Judgment and award refusing the claim for enhanced compensation in entirety.

The facts leading to the filing of this appeal and the Cross-Objection are as follows :-

2. The appellant No.2 is the Acquiring Body. The appellant No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal. The respondent No.1 is the original applicant. The respondent No.2 is the State. The respondent No.3 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent No.1 owned the land bearing Survey No.14 admeasuring 4.32 HR, Survey No.15 admeasuring 1.40 HR and land bearing Survey No.17 admeasuring 5.87 HR situated at village Barad, Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal. The lands were acquired for construction of Bembla Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Government Gazette on 24/07/2003. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Acquisition Act"). The respondent No.3 declared the award on 27/06/2005.

The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation @ Rs.83,099/-per hectare for land bearing Survey No.14 and compensation of Rs.7,27,669/- for fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation @ Rs.83,245/- per hectare for land bearing Survey No.15 and the compensation of Rs.23,600/- for fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation @ Rs.82,904/- for the land bearing Survey No.17. The respondent No.1 accepted the compensation under protest on 12/07/2005. He did not agree with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent No.1, therefore, made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. The respondent No.1 inter alia contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer failed to determine the proper market value of the land as well as the value of the trees. The Special Land Acquisition Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The lands bearing Survey Nos.14 and 15 were irrigated. The land of the respondent No.1 is situated at the distance of about 500 feet from village locality. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the quality and fertility of the land. The land was black soil land. The compensation awarded for the fruit bearing trees was meagre. The Special Land Acquisition Officer did not take all the aspects into consideration. The respondent No.1 claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.96,51,110/- for land bearing Survey No.14 and the fruit bearing trees therein. The respondent No.1 claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.65,69,857/- for land bearing Survey No.15 and the fruit bearing trees therein. The respondent No.1 claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.1,05,42,729/- for land bearing Survey No.17 and the fruit bearing trees therein.

4. The appellants and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the reference by filing their written statement. They have not disputed the acquisition of land with fruit bearing trees and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to them, the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award, has taken into consideration the relevant factors mentioned in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has granted just, proper and reasonable compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer has not committed any mistake. They further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the material, determined the market value of the land and also the value of the fruit bearing trees. According to them, the compensation sought to be cl