1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.288 OF 1993. Eknath S/o Rama Dahiphale, Age 52 years, Occ.Agriclture, R/o At Kuttarwadi, Post : Chinchpur-Izade, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar. ... Respondent. ... Mr.Ajay T.Kanawade, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 17.12.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and award rendered by learned 2nd Civil 2 Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar in Land Reference Case No.41/1983. By the impugned judgment the reference Court enhanced compensation and also additional component to certain extent. 2. Notification U/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28.1.1982. Certain lands were acquired for the purpose of minor Irrigation Tank at village Chinchpur-Izade under Pathardi Tahsil. Amongst the acquired lands were the lands bearing Gat Nos.229/3, 229/8, 229/4, 229/10-A and 10-B and 229/9. The appellant held shares in the said lands. He was dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the SLAO. He, therefore, preferred the Reference Applications U/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The grievance of the appellant was that the acquired lands were grossly under-valued. He contended that the SLAO wrongly determined market value of the acquired lands on the basis of classification as per land revenue assessment. He further asserted that the improvements done by 3 him were not considered by the SLAO. He further submitted that acquired lands were in the proximity of a sugar factory and, therefore, the market value thereof was much more. He asserted that he used to earn good deal of income from mango trees standing in the acquired lands but the trees were properly valued. Hence, he urged for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) per acre. The Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value determined by the SLAO in the range of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred) per hectare to Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) per hectare for the acquired lands was on lower side and all the acquired lands ought to have been valued at rate of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred) per hectare. The enhancement was accordingly partly allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 5. Mr.Ajay T.Kanawade, learned advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate would submit 4 that the Reference Court did not evaluate the value of the mango trees in accordance with the probable income derived by the claimant. He would further submit that the market value of the acquired lands could be determined on the basis of the sale instances. He submitted that the improvements made by the claimants, including Bandhs had not been considered while determining the market value when the Reference was answered. Per contra, learned A.G.P. Mr.Kaldate, supports the impugned judgment. 6. Though the SLAO determined the market value in accordance with placement of the lands in certain groups as per the revenue assessment, yet, the Reference Court removed such disparity. It is important to notice that on behalf of the claimant, there is a solitary version of his son i.e. PW Mohan. The appellant did not personally enter the witness box. The testimony of PW Mohan purports to show that the lands were of black soil. He asserted that the parcels of the lands were situated on bank of the river and, therefore, could fetch more market value. He 5 submitted that his well is submerged in the water after the acquisition. He alleged that expenditure of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) was incurred for construction of the well. According to him, there were six (6) mango trees in the land S.No.229. He states that he was earning income of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per mango tree for each year. He admits, however, that he could not produce evidence to show existence of the mango trees in the acquired lands. He further deposed that he had no knowledge whether Engineer of the acquiring body had visited the land in order to take measurement of the well. He showed ignorance whether the compensation of Rs.3,212-56 was awarded for the acquired well. He admittedly did not produce any evidence to show the measurement and condition of the well. 7. It is pertinent to notice that the sale instances referred to by the SLAO have been dealt with by the Reference Court. The Reference Court came to the conclusion that the sale instances 6 pertaining to post acquisition period could not be relevant. The appellant had placed reliance on sale deed dated 24.6.1982 which showed that 8 Ares land was sold for Rs.900/- (Rupees nine hundred). He also relied upon another sale deed dated 7.3.1984 which indicated the sale of 16 Ares land for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand). He further relied upon sale deed dated 25.5.1989, whereunder l hectare 6 Ares land was sold for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand). The Reference Court rightly came to the conclusion that these were the sale instances after the notification U/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, could not be relied upon. There appears no error committed by the Reference Court while discarding the said sale instances. The appellant also had relied upon another sale instance dated 2.4.1980. The Reference Court noticed that the land covered by the said sale instance was having added advantage of irrigation of water from a well as well as the sale included right to take fruits of the mango trees. 7 8. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the valuation of the well was improperly done. No expert was examined to show that the fruit bearing trees were valued much less than the market price. There can not be separate valuation of the fruit bearing trees and the land. The composite valuation is required to be done as held by a Division Bench of this Court in "State of Maharashtra Vs. Ambya Kalya Mhatre, since deceased through his legal heirs Gangabai Ambya Mhatre and others" 2009 (1) Mh.L.J.781. The Reference Court did not place implicit reliance on the solitary version of PW Mohan in the context of the valuation of the well and the trees. There appears no serious error committed by the Reference Court in the manner of appreciation of the evidence. 9. Considering the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/fa28893 8