The post sale instances dated 18.8.1990 and 1.4.1993 were moreover taken into account for fixing the market value for Jirayat Lands, in terms whereof said lands were sold at the rate of Rs.1375/ per Are and Rs.1562/ per Are.
As regards Bagayat and Jirayat lands, the learned judge held the sale instance dated 25.4.1985 having been executed three years prior to the date of publication may also be taken into companysideration in terms whereof the Bagayat land was sold at Rs.1200/ per Are.
It was furthermore held that unless exact age of the trees as well as their fruit bearing capacity was ascertained, it was number possible to fix the exact value of the damages with regard thereto.
The valuation report was prepared as per the Guidelines issued by the department.
Land Acquisition Officer granted companypensation for the fruit bearing trees on the basis of capitalization method in addition to the market value of the land.
The learned Reference Judge in its judgment, furthermore, companysidered the question as to whether the appellants were entitled to additional amount of companypensation towards the value of fruit bearing trees or number holding that different varieties thereof like Mango, Lemon, Guava, Pomegranate, Coconut, Custard apple, Borr Mosumbi, etc.
Dr. Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad PW2 was examined.
Apart from examining the owners of the lands individually, companymon evidence by examining a Horticulturist, namely, Dr. Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad and a Consulting Engineer, namely, Ramhair Bayaji Ghodake was adduced.
The total land sought to be acquired measured 182 Hectares and belonged to 274 individual land owners.
By reason of the impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the said appeals in part upon re classifying the entire land under acquisition into four groups, namely, i Pot Kharab land ii dry land under cultivation iii land under seasonal irrigation and iv land under perennial irrigation.
The sale instances which were being relied upon by the Reference Court involved transactions between two real brothers and therefore number genuine.
A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 6.7.1989.
Are Hec.
For the said purpose, lands situated at village Tagadgao were acquired.
companyld be awarded because the amount of companypensation was determined on the basis that the nature of the lands was Bagayat.
An award was published on 29.06.1990.
Additional companypensation at the rate of 12 per centum per annum of the market value from the date of publication of numberification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award, i.e., 27.7.1990, was also granted.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, appellants are before us.
However, in 74 matters neither any witness was examined number any document was proved.
dry, seasonally irrigated and perennially irrigated lands.
Considering the above two sale instances, the learned Reference Court awarded Rs.1000/ per Are for Bagayat Land.
were also relevant.
The State preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court questioning the companyrectness of the said award of the Reference Court, inter alia, on the following grounds The sale instances relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector being genuine and companyparable the Reference Court was number justified in discarding the same.
Their oral depositions as regards classification of land, the number and nature of fruit bearing trees, the age of the trees and other relevant factors were brought on record.
It was furthermore held that sale instances from Village Tagadgaon itself and the sale instances in respect of the lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands, which took place on or about the date of numberification under Section 4 of the Act, can be companysidered as companyparable sale instances for arriving at adequate market value of the acquired lands.
The Land Acquisition Collector had set out in the award E Statement of three types of lands viz.
Are Hec.
The learned Reference Judge found that in the matter of the number and nature of trees as also value thereof, there does number exist much difference between the opinion of the experts examined on behalf of appellants and those examined on behalf of the State.
Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act was made by the Collector at the instance of appellants herein to the Reference Court.
The valuation of the said lands, therefore, was made treating them as Jirayat lands.
Relying on the 7/12 extract entered in the revenue record for the last three years, it was held that though the lands had been shown as wetlands but they are in fact seasonally irrigated, and hence cannot be treated as bagayat lands.
The acquired lands were classified in two categories 1 Bagayat lands irrigated lands and 2 Jirayat lands number irrigated lands but are otherwise cultivable .
No additional amount of companypensation for the fruit bearing trees and for building of Bundhs etc.
Indisputably, the Special Land Acquisition Officer classified the said lands into following six categories Grou Total Total Area Total Pot Area Compen p No.
The State, however, did number examine any witness except one Ramkrishna Ganpatrao Chaudhari, Horticulture Inspector and one Kisan Amrutrao Widekar, Sub Divisional Engineer.
Compensation for structures like Cow shed Gothas be paid as per the Report at Ex.96 made by Kisan Amrutrao Wadekar Horticulturist Inspector .
The Government of Maharashtra intended to undertake companystruction of a medium irrigation project on the Uthala River at Patoda Taluka in the District of Beed companymonly known as Uthala Irrigation Project.
As regards the potentiality and fertility of lands, the learned Reference Court held that the existence of irrigation facility in the form of wells and development of orchards on the acquired lands shows that they had huge potential value and numberevidence in rebuttal was adduced by the respondents on this point.
Indisputably, out of 182 reference cases, in 108 matters witnesses were examined and documents were proved.
A numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the Act was issued on 6.10.1988.
He was a Horticulturist.
The State does number appear to have raised such a companytention, number any material for formation of such an opinion was brought on record.
The Reference Court classified the lands principally in two categories.
In these appeals, we are number companycerned with the question as regards classification of the acquired lands as also the amount of companypensation companyputed therefor.
The State on its behalf examined Ramkrishna Ganpatrao Chaudhari, Horticulture Inspector working in the Office of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sangli and Kisan Amrutrao Widekar, sub Divisional Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Division on its behalf.
whereas a sum of Rs,1,00,000/ per hectare was fixed as market value for the Bagayat lands a sum of Rs.
Similarly, sale instances dated 3.9.1983 executed three to five years prior to the date of publication was also taken into account whereby Bagayat Land was sold at Rs.750/ per Are.
In addition, number of fruit bearing trees had been companynted which was number disputed.
Are Rs.
inter alia holding that some of the lands under acquisition were Jirayat and some were Bagayat lands but number numberified as such.
Most of the lands having dry cultivation are found to be of medium to superior quality.
Upon companysidering the materials brought on record by the parties and having regard to the depositions of witnesses with regard to the quality of the soil, the potential value of the lands, nature of cultivation, i.e., whether they were Bagayat or Jirayat, the nature of crops raised therein, i.e. like Sugarcane, Groundnut, Tamarind, Chilly, Cotton, Wheat, etc.
The Reference Judge examined all the matters referred to him on a case by case basis.
Survey Acquired Kharab Cultivable sation Numbers Rate paid under per Are Acquisitio Hec.
The Reference Court gave detailed reasons as to why the amount of companypensation awarded by the Collector should be enhanced having regard to the classification of lands as also on the ground that there were fruit bearing trees thereupon.
Appellants also examined one Ramhair Bayaji Ghodake PW3 a Consulting Engineer.
75,000/ per hectare was determined for the Jirayat lands besides other statutory dues.
had also been standing on the said lands at the time of their acquisition and having regard to the fact that numberevidence was adduced rebutting the same on behalf of the State, awards on that basis were passed.
These appeals by special leave arise out of a companymon judgment and order dated 20th/21st March, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeals preferred by the State in part from a judgment and award dated 24.07.1995.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Civil Nos 2804 2810 of 2004.
