J.N.Patel, J.

First Appeal No.201/92 is filed by the State of Maharashtra aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court in L.A.C. No.48/89 (New LAC No.578/90) vide its judgment and order dated 27-11-1991 whereas the claimants have preferred First Appeal No.368/92 challenging the same and, therefore, these two appeals can be disposed of by common judgment and order.

2.The State Government was required to acquire land for Arunavati Project and land belonging to the claimants bearing field Survey No.13/2 admeasuring 3 Hectares 84 Acres situated at Kalsa, Tq. Digras, District Yavatmal came to be acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21-6-1981.

3.The award came to be passed on 23-9-1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer, who awarded compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.9500/- per hectare and in so far as compensation for two mango trees was concerned, he awarded a sum of Rs.648/-. On this reference was sought by the land owners/ claimants to the Civil Court, which by its judgment and order dated 27-11-1991 found that the owners/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per hectare and further they are entitled for compensation @ Rs.1500/- per tree in so far as 600 orange trees are concerned and in so far as the two mango trees are concerned, the Court awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- per tree. The Reference Court also found that the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of the Bund in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and to all other ancillary reliefs to which they were found entitled as per Sections 23(1) & (2) along with interest in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.

4.This came to be challenged by the State on the ground that the Reference Court has arrived at a conclusion in granting enhanced compensation without considering the revenue record and on the basis of 7/12 extract of survey No.13/2 which came to be filed by the claimants, which is not in consonance with the original record as it contained bogus entries.

5.It is further contended on behalf of the State that the 600 orange trees were non-existent when the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued and there has been no record to that effect to substantiate the claim of the owners and, therefore, granting of compensation for the orange trees is perverse. It has further contended that the Court has taken into consideration an adjoining field survey No.13/4 for the purposes of assessing the claimants and that the learned Reference Court permitted the claimants to amend their reference so as to enable them to include the claim for compensation against orange trees and further held that the land under acquisition was having perennial source of irrigation through the well of field survey no.6/4 which is also contrary to records and, therefore, the finding arrived at by the Reference Court on the basis of Exh. 14 & Exh.58 is per se illegal and contrary to the material facts and evidence on record. It is further contended that the approach of the Reference Court in assessing the compensation is totally erroneous and, therefore, the enhancement of compensation granted deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, the owners/claimants who have preferred First Appeal No.368/92 rather claim that the compensation awarded is on lower side in all respects, i.e. relating to the land, the orange trees, mango trees and the bund constructed by the claimants and that according to them, they ought to have been awarded compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per hectare and Rs.5000/- per orange tree and Rs.10,000/- per mango tree and, therefore, their appeal should be allowed in the aforesaid terms.

7.The owner claimants also challenged the acquisition on the ground that the declaration u/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 15-1-1984 and the award was passed on 23-9-1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer and as the same being passed after years from the declaration u/s 6, therefore, the proceedings are also to be quashed in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

8.The points which arise for determination in the appeal are as to whether the Reference Court was justified in granting enhanced compensation to the owners/claimants treating their land as irrigated land; secondly, whether the owners/claimants have proved that there were 600 fruit bearing orange trees in existence when the notification u/s 4 of the said Act came to be issued and thirdly, whether the enhanced compensation granted for two mango trees as well as the bund constructed by the owners/claimants is justified?

9.The learned Counsel for the parties took us through the evidence on record and the documents in order to justify their respective claims made in the appeal preferred by them.

10.In so far as grant of enhanced compensation is concerned, in respect of the land under acquisition, the only evidence on record is that of one Vitthal s/o Rodbaji Shinde, one of the original claimants. He has not disputed the acquisition of the land for the purpose of submergence of Arunavati Project vide notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the compensation came to be awarded vide Land Acquisition Case No.5/47/83-84 of Kalsa and that the award in the case came to be passed on 23-9-1986 and that they were awarded compensation @ Rs.9500/- per hectare. It is interesting to note that in cross-examination, the claimant has fairly conceded that basically they were owners of 3 fields at Malapur which is towards east side of Kalsa, out of survey No.6/2 which was owned by Pralhad Rodba and survey No.6/4 by Pandurang Rodba and it is out of the partition between their brothers that they were all residing separately and cultivating their respective shares separately. He has admitted that he has not filed any document on record to show as to what was the income they were getting from the agricultural land and in so far as the irrigation facility available to land is concerned, he has not placed on record any document to show that the land under acquisition was being irrigation from the well situated at survey no.6/4. He has further given an admission that he has not filed any map on record to show that survey no.6/4 is adjacent to the acquired filed and they have a legal fight to fetch water from the well situated in field survey no.6/4.

11.This witness has also given a clear admission that he has never sought any entry in the revenue record to show that the land under acquisition was enjoying irrigation and at the time they filed the claims statement u/s 9, they did not claims that their land was under irrigation and that the source of irrigation was the well situated in survey no.6-4. Therefore, in so far as the claim of the owners/claimants that their land had facility for perennial irrigation is not at all established. Surprisingly, even the documents, i.e. Exh.14 & Exh. 58 the genuineness of which is doubted also do not mention about the fact that the land was having irrigation facility from the well. On the other hand, it records that the source of irrigation was the river and not the well. A 7/12 extract of survey no.6/4 has been filed on record at Exh.52 which unfortunately does not mention that there was a well. On the other hand, this Exh.52 also goes to show that survey no.6/4 was being irrigated from the river the help of electric motor pump. Therefore, in our opinion, the claim of the owners/claimants that their land was irrigated cannot be accepted and the Reference Court committed a grave error in arriving at the finding that the land of the owners/claimants under acquisition had perennial irrigation facility and, therefore, can be classified as irrigated land and on the basis of this, granted enhanced compensation to which the owners of irrigated lands were entitled.

12.In so far as existence of orange trees is concerned, this in our view is an improvement made before the Reference Court and is a totally false claim as there is no contemporaneous revenue record of the period to show that there were 600 orange trees on the land bearing survey no.13/2. If that was so, there was no reason why in the claims statement u/s 9 the owners/claimants did not claim any compensation for 600 orange trees in the field. We have no hesitation to hold that the subsequent documents procured through the Talathi by obtaining certified copy of 7/12 extract was for the purpose of supporting their false claim of existence of orange trees. It is really surprising that the Reference Court overlooked the original record, and proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer in order verify the genuineness of these documents, which was got manipulated and obtained by the owners/claimants to support their claim for compensation for 600 orange trees. According to the record of the Land Acquisition Officer when a joint measurement was taken for the purpose of proceedings for acquisition of the land, these orange trees were not found in existence at all nor there was any revenue record to that effect. Therefore, the claim for compensation, much less enhanced compensation for orange trees also does not survive.

13.The next item in respect of the claim is about mango trees. According to the owner/ claimants. There were two mango trees whereas the authorities have only found one in existence while considering the fact that it does not make much difference but for want of any evidence on record, the claim of the owners/appellants that they are entitled for Rs.10,000/- per mango trees cannot be accepted blindly without there being any evidence on record as to the age of the mango trees, the income yielded by the trees and so on.

14.The last item is the bund constructed by the claimants/owners and for the said purpose, they have examined one Dhananjay Chavan who claims to be an Engineering Contractor and according to him, the bund came to be valued at Rs.79,502/-. In the valuation report, he has given the extent of the bund and in his cross-examination he has been exposed to the extent as to whether he can be a competent witness on the subject for want of necessary qualifications and experience.

15.In so far as market price of the land is concerned, the claimants have examined one Bhimrao Deorao Gawande who has sold his 4 acres and 13 gunthas of land bearing survey no.2/1 of village Mokh for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- which was having a well and an electric motor pump installed on it. It is on the basis of this evidence that the learned Reference Court passed the impugned order.

16.Mr. Gorday, learned Counsel appearing for the owners/claimants, tried to impress upon us that the findings arrived at by the Reference Court are based on evidence on record, i.e. particularly the 7/12 extracts, certified copies of which have been filed by the owners/claimants which do support the owners/claimants' case but Mr. Gorday has not been able to satisfy us on the basis of evidence of the witness examined on behalf of owners/claimants of the field under acquisition. On the other hand, the original and the joint measurement survey conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer belies the claim of the claimants in so far as the land under acquisition was irrigated land and it had 600 orange trees at the time the notification u/s 4 came to be issued and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Gorday as to what should be the parameter for assessing the value of the tress as laid down in the case of State of Madras. vs. Rev. Brother Joseph reported in AIR 1973 SC 2463 and placing of reliance on the Government Circular dated 18-12-1975 as regards the valuation of fruit bearing tree cannot be taken into consideration at all as we are satisfied that the claim of the owners/ claimants that there were 600 fruit bearing orange trees on the land at the time of acquisition does not stand established at all.

17.In so far as the valuation of the land in question is concerned, our attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in a group of appeals disposed of by common judgment and order dated 21.10.1992. Mr. Gorday submitted that when similarly placed person have been awarded compensation at a particular rate, the same parameter will have to be applied for the owners/claimants. We are inclined to accept this proposition as this Court has already taken a view in respect of land acquired for the said project arising out of a notification under Section 4 more or less issued at the same time in the aforesaid judgment and order passed in First Appeal Nos.32/90, 57/90, 30/90, 36/90, 14/90, 58/90, 31/90, 38/90, 33/90, 37/90. In the said decision, this Court has come to the conclusion that the notification in those cases being issued on 22-5-1981, i.e. a month earlier than the present notification under which the land of the owners/claimants came to be acquired, we are inclined to grant Rs.13,000/- per acre as a proper market value of dry crop land and the impugned order stands modified accordingly and the market value of the said under acquisition should be calculated at the said rate along with all the ancillary benefits arising therefrom.

18.The claim of the owners/claimants so far as orange trees are concerned, the same stands rejected. In so far as mango trees are concerned, we are inclined to grant Rs.5000/- each for the two mango trees and so far as the bund is concerned, in our view, a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be sufficient compensation. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the judgment and order of the trial Court stands modified accordingly with no order as to costs.