Just compensation for land acquisition requires adherence to fair market valuation standards, considering factors like property age and productivity.

Pravin S. Patil, J.

1. In the present appeal, the claimants challenged the judgment and order dated 11.3.2015 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, in Land Acquisition Case No.278/2007, on the ground that the learned Reference Court has committed manifest error by not considering the correct valuation of the orange trees in the matter.

2. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the appellants own and possesses an agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.128/2-A of mouza Loni, Tq. Warud, District Amravati, total admeasuring 0.66 R and field field survey No.128/2B of mouza Loni of admeasuring 0.53 R of an agricultural land.

3. In the present case, it is specifically stated by the Appellant that the State Government has issued the first notification on 31.7.2003 under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , by publishing it on village Panchayat Notice Board. However, after issuing this notification, at the State level there were certain modifications and hence fresh notification again under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was issued on 24.06.2004. The respondent-State does not dispute this factual position.

4. It is the case of the appellants that in the final award the respondents have awarded less compensation i.e Rs.2,86,403/- for 285 orange trees. According to the appellants, as per market value they were entitled for higher compensation than paid by special Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, they were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.

5. The appellants immediately thereafter filed a Reference under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT . Before the Reference Court, the appellants to discharge their burden has examined Ashok Laxmanrao Savarkar and pointed out as to how in the vicinity the higher rate has been awarded by the State Government, and thereby appellants are also entitled for enhancement of compensation. The appellants in support of their submission have also examined private valuer namely Narayan Gangaram Thoke at Exh.49 and Nandkishore Sahebraoji Bhodkhe at Exh.52. As such according to their valuation, it is the submission of the appellant that by considering the entire evidence the proper market rate should be determined in the matter and grant an enhancement in the compensation.

6. Before the Reference Court, no one has been examined on behalf of the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the respondents not even cross-examined the witnesses which were produced by the appellants before the Reference Court.

7. In the light of this oral and documentary evidence made available before the Reference Court, the learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2015 decided the reference proceeding. The learned Reference Court instead of making any efforts on the basis of submission made before the Reference Court, only by referring that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation towards orange trees by 25% to 30%, awarded an additional compensation of Rs.64,540/- as a lump sum amount.

8. The appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court approached before this Court by way of present appeal. The primary submission of the present appeal is that in view of the evidence which was brought on record, the admitted fact was that in the Land Acquisition proceeding the modified notification under section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was issued on 24.06.2004 and in the financial year 2004-05, the market rate of oranges at APMC, Warud was Rs.1201/- per 1000 fruits. This fact is specifically noted by the learned Reference Court in para 23 of the judgment. Therefore, as per the mandate o