IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants in land acquisition cases must provide cogent evidence to support claims for enhanced compensation, particularly regarding the classification and use of the land at the time of acquisition.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The appellants - claimants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 19/8/2000 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 61 of 1990 passed by the learned Senior Division, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Reference Court") have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. It is signifcant to note that, the learned Reference Court has dismissed the Land Acquisition Reference of the present appellants - claimants and justifed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Ofcer under the award dtd. 24/1/1990.

2. The backgrounds facts of the case are as follows:

The land gut No. 227 to the extent of 55 Are situated at village Diggar, Tq. Kannd owned by the appellants was acquired for Palashi Medium Project by the concerned Land Acquisition Ofcer. Notifcation under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to that effect was published in Government Gazette on 6/3/1986 and it was also published in daily newspaper "Nawamaratha" on 29/2/1986. The village publication was made on 25/1/1987. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Ofcer passed an award on 24/1/1990 and categorized the land of appellants in Group - V as the assessment was above Rs.5.00. The Land Acquisition Ofcer considered the land as Jirayat and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.320.00 per Are equivalent to total compensation amount of Rs.17, 600.00 for 55 Are. The Land Acquisition Ofcer also granted statutory benefts to the appellants. However, the appellants were not satisfed with the said amount of compensation and hence by fling the Land Acquisition Reference No. 61 of 1990, they sought enhancement of the compensation and claimed rate of Rs.1250.00 per Are on the ground that, their land was Bagayat land having water facilities as per the share in Well from another gut number. They also claimed that, there were three Mango trees in their feld which could have benefted them for atleast 60 years in future. As such, they had claimed total compensation of Rs.99, 00, 650.00. However, the learned Reference Court considering the material on record dismissed their claim under the impugned judgment and award and hence this appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants - claimants submits that, the concerned Special Land Acquisition Ofcer has granted very meagre rate of compensation by ignoring the fact that, the land under acquisition was having water facilities and Mango trees. She pointed out that, the comparable sale-deed which is at Exh.66 had in fact shown rate of Rs.1250.00 per Are, which could have been granted by the learned Reference Court. She also pointed out that, the 7/12 extract produced by the appellants had in fact indicated that, Bagayat crops like Sugarcane were being taken from the land under acquisition but it was ignored by the learned Reference Court. As such, she claimed enhancement of the compensation.

4. On the contrary, learned A.G.P. strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and supported the impugned judgment and award. He pointed out that, the Special Land Acquisition Ofcer considering all the aspects, has granted proper compensation and therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly dismissed the claim of appellants. According to him, Sugarcane crop which was found in the land under acquisition was of 1989 and there is no evidence at all that such crop was taken by the appellants at the time of notifcation under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Ofcer, Poona and Anr., reported in 1988 AIR 1652 and submitted that, the appellants - claimants must stand on their own legs by adducing cogent evidence in respect of their contentions in enhancement of the compensation. As such, he prayed for dismissal of appeal.

5. Heard rival submissions and also perused entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment. It is signifcant to note that, the appellants - claim