1 F. A. No. 605/93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 OF 1993 Dhondiba Jaywant Waman .. Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri P. M. Nagargoje, Advocate h/f Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri K. M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 08TH DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel Mr. Nagargoje for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. By this appeal the original claimant challenges judgment and award dated 29th November, 1989 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar in L. A. R. No. 325/1986. 3. Brief facts of the matter are as under : 2 F. A. No. 605/93 The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification U/Sec. 4 dated 05.05.1983 for acquiring appellant's/original claimant's land admeasuring 50R from gat No. 42 for percolation tank. After following due procedure of law the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 23rd September, 1986 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land to the tune of Rs. 3500/- and a sum of Rs. 24,733.55 paise for trees. 4. Being aggrieved by the award dated 23rd September 1986 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant preferred reference U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said reference the claimant claimed sum of Rs. 24,000/- towards land, Rs. 25,000/- for Tals, Rs. 24,000/- for 12 tamrind trees, Rs. 14,000/- for 14 Sitaphal trees, Rs. 2,000/- for 2 Jambhul trees and Rs. 12,000/- for 15 bare trees. The Reference Court by its judgment and award dated 29th November, 1989 awarded additional compensation of Rs. 7,500/- towards the land along with statutory benefits. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award original claimant preferred this appeal. 3 F. A. No. 605/93 6. Heard both sides at length and perused the record and proceedings. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Nagargoje appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the Reference Court wrongly came to the conclusion that claimant is not entitled compensation of Rs. 24,000/- towards the land. He further submits that, the Reference Court ought to have granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for fruit bearing trees. He further submits that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the acquired land is Jirayat. He further submits that Reference Court has not considered the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad, Horticulture consultant at the time of deciding market value of the fruit bearing trees. He submits that P.W. 2 submitted his report after considering the evidence on record and held that claimant is entitled enhanced compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. He submits that the Reference Court discarded the evidence of P.W. 2 and his report on the ground that he visited the village Devgaon on 14th November, 1989 for inspection of gat No. 42. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the Reference Court ought to have considered the evidence of P.W. 2 for awarding enhanced 4 F. A. No. 605/93 compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant filed civil application No. 12688/2010 for relying on additional documents to show that the acquired land was Bagayat land. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Suryawanshi appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the Reference Court has considered the evidence on record and rightly held that the claimant failed to prove that acquired land was Bagayat land. He further submits that considering the sale deed at Exhibit 13, the Reference Court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 7,500/- towards the land. He further submits that the Reference Court rightly discarded the evidence of P.W. 2 and his report, as he visited the acquired land on 14th November, 1989 i. e. after six years from the date of notification U/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the basis of these submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that, there is no substance in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 10. In the present case the Reference Court relied on sale deed 5 F. A. No. 605/93 at Exhibit 13 i. e. extract of Index II, wherein 42R land was sold for Rs. 9,000/- by one Rupchand Sitaram Waman to Paraji Dagadu Kolhe on 01st June, 1985 i. e. at the rate of Rs. 21,500/- per hector. The Reference Court rightly relied on this sale instance because the land involved in the sale instance is of the similar nature as of the acquired land. Except two sale instances i. e. at Exhibit 12 and 13, appellant has not produced any other document on record to show that he is entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land. 11. The appellant in his deposition at Exhibit 9 specifically stated that he was cultivating wheat, harbhara and jawari in the acquired land. These crops itself shows that the land was Jirayat land. Nowhere in his deposition he stated that he was taking Bagayat crops. Therefore, considering the evidence of claimant himself it is very difficult to held that the acquired land was Bagayat land. The additional documents produced by the appellant along with Civil Application No. 12688/2010 also show that the acquired land was Jirayat land. Therefore, those documents cannot be relied for holding that the respondent acquired Bagayat land. 6 F. A. No. 605/93 12. The Reference Court rightly discarded the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad, Horticulture Consultant on the ground that for first time he visited the acquired land on 14th November, 1989, though the notification U/Sec. 4 was issued on 05th May, 1983. Not only that this witness himself admitted in the cross examination that he prepared his valuation report on the basis of 7/12 extract. 13. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence on record to show that he is entitled enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Reference Court. 14. The first appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [K. K. TATED, J.] bsb/Dec. 10