1 fa 1662.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1662 OF 2010 Shivram Krushnaji Dhyagude, Age : 69 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o 1481, Shukrawar Peth, Patwardhan Wada, Pune .. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Ahmednagar. 2. The Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., M. & C. Division, Nasik. .. Respondents Shri M. R. Sonwane, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri B. G. Sonwane, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri S. M. Godsay, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . The land of the present appellant bearing gat No. 48 to the extent of 1 Hector was acquired by the respondents. Being 2 fa 1662.10 dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant preferred a Reference U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/­ per hector instead of Rs. 25,000/­ per hector granted by the S. L. A. O. Aggrieved by inadequate amount of compensation awarded, the claimant has filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Sonwane, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact, the Reference Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the land in question was a Jirayat land. In fact, it was a Bagayat land. The crops which are harvested would substantiate the fact that the same was Bagayat land. The lemon trees were cultivated, so also the crops like ground­nut, wheat were harvested. All this would go to show that the land in question was Bagayat land. Even oral evidence is led to that effect, same is not considered. The respondents had not led any contra evidence. 3. Per contra Shri Godsay, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the Reference Court on considering the evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the land in question was Jirayat land and as 3 fa 1662.10 such, has rightly not awarded the compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/­ per hector and restricted it to Rs. 1,00,000/­. Taking into consideration the nature of crops, it has been rightly held that the land was Jirayat land. Shri Sonwane, the learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the argument of Shri Godsay. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the record and proceedings. The Reference Court has come to the conclusion that for a Bagayat land the compensation would be double that of Jirayat land and holding the land of the appellant to be a Jirayat land has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/­ per hector. The nature of crops which were taken by the present appellant shows that the appellant has harvested the lemon trees consistently, so also ground­nut. In 1993­94 ground­nut, lemon trees were cultivated and in the year 1994­95 onion, ground­nut was cultivated. So also in the year 1994­95, 1995­96 it is shown that ground­nut is cultivated. All these entries would consistently show that the appellant was deriving water from the well for cultivating the land. No doubt, owner of the said land also have share in the said well water. As such, it cannot be said that the land was total Jirayat land. No 4 fa 1662.10 doubt, the appellant could not show that there was an irrigation facility to his land by canal water. As such, it cannot be held that the land was perennially irrigated one. Taking into account the nature of crops which were cultivated by the appellant, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the land was seasonally irrigated land and the appellant would be entitled for a compensation of one and half times of Jirayat land. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/­ (Rs. One Lakh Fifty thousands only) per hector along with all other benefits as awarded by the Reference Court. The first appeal is accordingly disposed of, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11