Compensation for land acquisition must reflect the market value of irrigated land as double that of Jirayat land; expert evidence on valuation should not be dismissed without adequate justification.

R. M. Joshi, J.

1. By consent of both sides, heard together and decided by common judgment.

2. These Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 take exception to the award dated 18.02.2008 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 29/2004 and 30/2004.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the Government of Maharashtra published Notification No. 2000/LNQ/CR/52 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27.08.2000 and proposed acquisition of lands situated at village Takli (Bombli), Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur for construction of percolation tank at village Takli (Bombli). The lands were acquired for the said purpose on 27.08.2000. Claimants submitted statement of claim before the Land Acquisition Officer for determination of market value of the acquired lands under Section 9 of the Act supported by documentary evidence. It is the case of claimants that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded inadequate compensation by ignoring the relevant factors which are required considered for the purpose of computation of compensation payable in case of lands acquired. The claimants have given several supporting factors to indicate that compensation of the land would not be as low as decided by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. According to the claimants, the market rate as on the date of notification was Rs. 2,00,000/- per Acre and hence the references in question were made to the Reference Court for determination of reasonable compensation.

4. Respondents resisted the reference by filing common say in Land Acquisition Reference No. 21/2004 denying contentions of claimants and supported the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

5. On behalf on the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined i.e. Shrimant s/o Bapurao Sonale (Exhibit 19), Manohar s/o Apparao Bhosale (Exhibit 20), Vitthal s/o Govindrao Bhosale (Exhibit 21) and Sharadchandra s/o Mahadeo Parchure (Exhibit 22) in Land Acquisition Reference No. 29/2004.

6. Before the Reference Court, claimants relied upon two sale instances i.e. sale-deeds at Exhibit 17 and 18. Reference Court has accepted sale instance at Exhibit 18 which admittedly pertains to the Jirayat land. Reference Court, on the basis of sale value of Rs. 1,70,000/-, decided the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R and since the said sale-deed was in respect of jirayat land, one and half time addition was given to the claimants. Thus, amount of Rs. 3,375/- per R came to be determined as compensation of land by the Reference Court. Reference Court rejected the claim of the claimants in respect of the trees and super structure. The said claim was essentially rejected on the ground that the Valuer is not expert in valuing the trees.

7. Learned counsel for Appellants submits that once the Reference court has accepted the sale-deed (Exhibit 18) dated 20.04.2000 to be comparable sale instance, then admittedly the said sale was in respect of Jirayat land and for the purpose of deciding compensation, valuation of the property ought to have been taken double to the valuation of the Jirayat land. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra and another vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil, 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 82 and judgment of Division Bench in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Jalgaon and another vs. Bhagwat Vithal Sonawane, 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 308. It is his further submissio