The court determined that the agricultural lands were improperly classified as dry and held that irrigated lands merit enhanced compensation based on relevant market evidence and applicable legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

1. These appeals are preferred against the common judgment and award dated 29.04.2002 passed by the Land Reference Court, Ahmedpur District Latur in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 346 of 2001 (Old No.378/1992), 347 of 2002 (Old No.379/1992), 348 of 2001 (Old No.380/1992), 349 of 2001 (Old No.381/1992), 354 of 2001 (Old No.386/1992), 355 of 2001 (Old No.387/1992) and 832 of 2001 (Old No.669/1992). The claim was partly allowed.

2. With the consent and through private negotiation, the agricultural lands of the appellants / claimants were taken into possession by the State Government for the purpose of construction of a Percolation Tank at village Dhalegaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. The notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was issued on 14.01.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.12.1990 and awarded compensation @ Rs.16,500/- per hectare to the claimants for their acquired lands. Thereafter, the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded Rs.250/- per Are i.e., Rs.25,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, Latur, the claimants have preferred these appeals.

3. The details of the acquired lands are as follows:

4. Learned advocate for the appellants / claimants pointed out impugned judgment and award as well as the pleadings of the parties and the grounds of objections in the appeals. He submitted that the sale instance at Exhibit-25 dated 18.03.1987, which is the most relevant document for determining the market value of the acquired lands of the claimants, was not properly appreciated by the learned Reference Court. He further pointed out the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits-26 to 39, which show the existence of a well and a lake in the acquired lands of the claimants. However, the Reference Court held that the acquired lands were dry lands and failed to appreciate the said evidence along with the oral evidence of the claimants, who stated that they were irrigating their lands by using a diesel pump and pipeline. He further submitted that for the purpose of proving that the lands were irrigated, it is not necessary to prove that commercial crops must have been harvested by the farmers / agriculturists. Therefore, he prayed to award the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellants / claimants by setting aside the impugned judgment and award.

5. Learned AGP for the State strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that the appellants / claimants were cultivating commercial crops with the help of a diesel pump and pipeline. The 7/12 extracts show only ordinary crops. He further pointed out that neither the vendor nor the purchaser of sale instance at Exhibit-25 was examined, as observed by the Reference Court in paragraph No.19. He submitted that the said sale instance is not reliable, as the land sold is situated in village Zari, whereas the acquired lands of the appellants / claimants are from village Dhalegaon. He therefore submitted that no reliance can be placed on the said sale instance, as there is no substance in the grounds raised by the appellants. He lastly prayed to dismiss the appeals.

6. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the oral evidence of the appellants / claimants, the 7/12 extracts of the acquired lands, and the sale instance at Exhibit-25. Admittedly, the distance between village Zari and village Dhalegaon is about three kilometers. The sale instance at Exhibit-25 shows that one of the boundaries of the land has a river, which indic