1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.184 of 1993 Abasaheb Majabapu Bhose age 32 years, occup. Agril. r/o Bhawadi, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, through G.P.A. Hausarao Majabapu Bhose ... appellant/ori.applicant versus The State of Maharashtra. ... respondent/ori.opponent ====== Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. For the respondent. CORAM: P.R. Borkar, J. DATE: 9th June 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT. 1. This is an appeal by original applicant-petitioner, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Land Reference Application No.152 of 1983 decided on 20.12.1989. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was owner of Gat No.101 situated at village Bavadi, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar,. 51 R land was acquired by the State for percolation tank. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 2 published in Government Gazette on 26.11.1986 . After due enquiry, Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award, but present appellant was not satisfied with the same and, therefore, he filed Reference under Section 18 of the said Act. He claimed additional compensation at Rs.30,000/= per hectare and also compensation of Rs.44,750.80 ps. for trees. 3. Learned Reference cosurt accepted the sale instance produced by the claimant at Exh.40. As per the said sale deed dated 5.11.1981, 41 R land was sold out of block No.132 for Rs.3000/= by one Bhagubai Gangaram. Sale instance at Exh.40 was accepted and thereby compensdation at Rs.10,000/= per hectare was awarded to the claimant. No other sale instance was produced by either side. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the reference court committed any error in awarding compensation at Rs.10,000/= per hectare. 4. So far as compensation for trees is concerned, on the basis of report of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, the same is granted at Rs.27,699/= for various trees. In order to show that valuation of the trees was less, applicant has examined Mr. M.R. Gaikwad as an expert witness, who produced valuation report at Exh.36. However, it is abundantly clear that he had no occasion to see the trees in question. He specifically admitted in his evidence that the trees were not in existence when he was called upon to give report. Under the circumstances, ordinarily, he ought to have relied upon the report of the Deputy Director (Horticulture) so far as height, girth and spread of the trees are concerned. For reasons best known, he differed 3 from the opinion of Dr. Gaikwad. Reference court rightly observed that for acceptance of report of an expert, the expert should have personally verified the situation and after such verification, his evidence could be accepted, otherwise it would be guesswork. . In my opinion, evidence of Dr. Gaikwad is rightly rejected by the trial court. 5. The appellant has alsos produced certain bills with list Exh. 30, which is said to have been issued by M/s Borawake and Company of Bombay. Learned trial judge observed that those bills do not bear signature of any representative of the said firm. Moreover, no presumption could be drawn that the receipts were in respect of trees in question. 6. It is also admitted by learned counsel Shri Bedre for appellant that the amount of Rs.10,000/= per hectare should have been awarded even for pot kharab. However, it is not proved that the market price of pot kharab was Rs.10,000/= per hectare. 7. In the facts and circumstances, appeal has no merits. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no costs. pnd/oo fa184.93 (P. R.BORKAR, J.)