IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for acquired land and trees must be based on fair market value and supported by credible evidence, with a clear obligation to adhere to established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard finally.

2. This appeal and cross objection arises out of the judgment and award passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, Washim (For short 'the Reference Court') dtd. 21/6/2011 and therefore the same are being disposed of by common judgment. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award enhanced the compensation in respect of land from Rs.23, 000.00 per hectare to Rs.2, 00, 000.00 per hectare and further directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.2000.00 per tree in respect of 96 orange trees.

3. Background facts: In First appeal, Respondent No.1- Chunnilal Ghashiram Kubre (deceased) is the original claimant. During the pendency of the land acquisition case he died and his legal heirs were brought on record. Therefore, legal heirs of respondent No.1 are hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'. The land admeasuring 1.38 H.R. from Survey No. 126 situated at Mouza Waigaul, Tal Manora, District Washim was acquired for the purpose of Waigaul Dam Project. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1894, ) was published on 30/4/1998. After completion of the required procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 16/12/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.23, 000.00 per hectare for the acquired land and Rs.2, 480.00 for orange trees.

4. Respondent No.1-Chunnilal Kubre was not satisfied by this award. Therefore, he filed reference application before the Collector and claimed enhancement in the compensation. The Collector, forwarded the reference to the District Court, Washim.

5. Before the Reference Court the appellant filed the written statement and opposed the claim. It was contended that the acquired land was of dry crop medium quality land. The compensation, according to the appellant, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, was just, proper and reasonable. It was contended that compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and exorbitant.

6. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2, 00, 000.00 per hectare and awarded Rs.2000.00 per tree in respect of 96 orange trees. The State and acquiring body being aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land and orange trees has filed the appeal. The claimants/LR's of respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, in respect of land and orange trees, have filed cross objection.

7. Heard learned Advocate Mr Vinay Dahat for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr Sajeed Varshani for legal heirs of respondent No.1 and Mr M. A. Kadu, learned AGP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings. Following points fall for my determination:

i] Whether enhancement of the compensation in respect of the land granted by the Reference Court was just, proper and reasonable?

ii] Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court in respect of orange trees is inadequate?

8. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that as per the valuer report the compensation awarded in respect of the land at the rate of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 per hectare is just and reasonable. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in respect of the similarly situated lands in First Appeal No. 581 of 2007 alongwith Cross objection No. 1 of 2008 (The State of Maharashtra and others .v/s. Harichand Bhasu Rathod, decided on 23/3/2016) the compensation awarded for the land was Rs.89, 500.00 per acre (Rs.2, 23, 750.00 per hectare). Learned Advocate submitted that valuation of tees as claimed by the claimants is baseless and exaggerated without considering the age, expenditure and fluctuating market rates. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that therefore the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not proper.

9. Learned Advocate for the claimants/legal heirs of respondent No.1 submitted that as far as compensation in respect of land is concerned the case of the claimant would be covered by