The court ruled that the irrigation classification of land depends significantly on the actual availability of water, irrespective of crop usage patterns.

1. Since, this appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same judgment and award dated 2.7.2019, passed by Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal (for short, “reference Court”), the appeal and the cross-objection are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. I have heard learned advocate for appellant Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. A.B. Nakshane, and learned AGP Ms. Deepa Charlewar for respondent Nos. 3 and 4/State. 3. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and award dated 2.7.2019, passed by the reference Court, whereby the reference Court was pleased to partly allow the reference and grant enhancement. The main grievance of the cross-objectors is that the irrigated land with the source of well water was treated as the seasonal irrigated land.

4. The land of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 bearing Gat No. 160/2, admeasuring 1.28 hector out of total land of 4.91 hector acquired for the purpose of Bembla main canal. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Act”, for short) was published on 23.8.2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (“SLAO”, for short) passed the award on 26.8.2010. The SLAO awarded the compensation @ Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand) per hector for acquired land and Rs. 1,46,736/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Six) for well. The reference Court enhanced the compensation of the land to Rs. 7,15,590/- (Rupees Seven Lac Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety) per hector and Rs. 1,76,100/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Six Thousand One Hundred)for the well. The appellant – the acquiring body is aggrieved by the enhancement granted by the reference Court. Similarly, the cross-objectors being aggrieved by the inadequate enhancement, filed cross-objection to the appeal.

5. The claimants - cross-objectors filed reference contending that the compensation granted by the SLAO was not proper. It is contended that the land was treated as seasonally irrigated land whereas the land is perennially irrigated land with source of well water.

6. The learned advocates for the parties have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 645/2019 ( Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and another Vs. Pushpabai Vasantrao Jadhao and others ). It is pointed out that in this appeal, the compensation awarded in respect of dry crop land was Rs. 4,77,059/- (Rupees Four Lac Seventy Seven Thousand Fifty Nine) per hector. The learned advocate submitted that except the dispute as to whether the land is perennially irrigated or the seasonally irrigated, the appeal is covered by the judgment. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that considering the crop pattern and the evidence adduced before the reference Court, the reference Court was right in holding that the land was seasonally irrigated land. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that the land was perennially irrigated. The learned advocate submitted that there is no evidence to prove that well was having the water to irrigate the land throughout the year. As against this, the learned advocate for the claimants/cross-objectors submitted that the crop pattern may not be the sole decisive factor to decide whether the land is seasonally irrigated or perennially irrigated. The learned advocate submitted that the 7/12 extract filed on record apart from indicating the crop pattern, suggests that the well had sufficient water for irrigating the land throughout the year. The learned advocate took me through the report of the valuer and pointed out that at the time of inspection of the land on 15.4.2008, the valuer apart from recording th