1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 124 OF 1999 1. State of Goa through the Special Land Acquisition Officer(SIP) Gogol, Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Div. X, Irrigation Department, Pajimol, Sanguem, Goa. ... Appellants versus 1. Dr. G. K. Salelkar(expired) represented by Shri A. K. Salelkar, Sanguem, Goa. 1(a). Smt.(Dr.) Usha G. Salelkar, 1(b). Shri Harish Sharma, 1(c). Smt. Soniya Sharma, 1(d) Shri Shivaji Salelkar, all represented by their duly Constituted Attorney, Shri A. K. Salelkar, r/o Sanguem, Goa. ... Respondents Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. P. A. Kholkar, Advocate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. 2. This appeal is directed against Judgment/Award dated 27-7-1999 of the learned Reference Court by which compensation for 15 mango trees has been enhanced to Rs.400/- per tree and for 195 cashew trees to Rs.150/- per tree, with consequential statutory benefits. 3. Briefly stated, Applicants'(Respondents herein) vast property along with various types of trees was acquired by Notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1881 on Gazette dated 2-12-1971. The Applicants did not prefer any reference for enhancement of compensation either for land acquired or trees existing thereon but after a reference was made by Shri Narendra Nadkarni in L.A.C. No. 387 of 1981 and decided, that the Applicants preferred an application under Section 28-A of the said Act, for re-determination of the market value of the land, trees and houses. It appears that the Applicants claim for enhancement towards land was accepted by the L.A.O. but as regards trees and houses it was rejected and against this rejection that the Applicants preferred a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the said Act claiming 3 enhanced compensation for jack fruit trees, mango trees, tamarind trees, etc. and on the basis of which issue no.3 was framed and which has been answered partly by the learned Reference Court in favour of the Applicants and the compensation payable towards the mango trees has been enhanced to Rs.400/- per tree and towards cashew trees to Rs.150/- per tree. The said issue reads as follows: “Whether the applicants prove that they are entitled to Rs.800/- for each jack fruit tree, mango tree and tamarind tree and Rs.400/- each for jack plants, mango plants and Rs.150/- for each cashew tree and Rs.50/- for each cashew plant?” 4. There is no dispute that at the time of the initial award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Applicants were awarded compensation for 15 mango trees at rates ranging from Rs.36.66 to Rs.66/- per tree. The cashew trees were valued differently i.e. 91 trees/plants were valued at 2010/-, 11 trees/plants were valued at Rs.39/-, 16 trees/plants were valued at Rs.250/-, 80 trees/plants valued at Rs.1,160/-, etc. In other words, it can be seen that different value was given to different trees. The Applicants did examine one expert, a retired Director of Agriculture Department, who spoke nothing as far as the mango trees or cashew trees were concerned. The learned Reference Court observed that there were no jack fruit trees in the acquired property of the said Nadkarni and therefore the Applicants were not entitled for any enhancement. However, the learned Reference Court by comparing the value of a mango tree to a jack fruit tree 4 enhanced the value payable towards the mango tree at Rs.400/- per tree. It is common knowledge that a mango tree cannot be easily compared to a jack fruit tree which has much higher timber value. If the learned Reference Court thought that the Applicants were not entitled for enhancement of the value of the jack fruit trees because there were no jack fruit trees involved in the property of the said Nadkarni going, by the same analogy, the learned Reference Court could not have enhanced the value for mango trees, claimed by the Applicants at different rates from Rs.800/- to Rs.400/-. As far as the cashew trees/plants are concerned, the learned Reference Court found that there was one cashew tree in the acquired property of the said Nadkarni's whose value was enhanced to Rs.500/- and there were other trees whose value was fixed at Rs.150/- and on that basis proceeded to draw an average of Rs.150/- and ordered that the same be paid to the Applicants in respect of cashew trees. It is common knowledge that when the valuation of trees is done by the L.A.O. at the time of acquisition the same is done through experts of Zonal Agricultural Office. It can be presumed that the said experts after inspecting the size of the cashew trees/plants, their ages, etc. awarded different rates. The Applicants expert was not able to throw any light on the said valuation and in the absence of any evidence led by the Applicants regarding the nature, age and size of the cashew trees which were already valued by the L.A.O, the learned Reference Court was not certainly justified in enhancing the value and fixing a uniform rate of Rs.150/- per tree. 5 5. Considering the above, the impugned Order deserves to be interfered with and set aside. Appeal is allowed. Considering the facts, there will be no order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD