1 8FA854.20.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1898 OF 2019 IN FA/854/2020 1. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Through Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhana Project, Division at Selu, Now Jalna Irrigation Division, Jalna. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Jalna. 3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalna, (MIW) Jalna. ...Appellants Versus Indrajit Dadarao Wagh ...Respondent ... Advocate for Appellant No. 1 : Mr. Arora Shyam C. AGP for Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. V.S. Badakh Advocate for Respondent : Mr. More Kumar Gaurav M. … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1559 OF 2023 Indrajit Dadarao Wagh ...Appellant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Jalna. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalna, (MIW) Jalna. 2026:BHC-AUG:9584 2 8FA854.20.odt 3. The Executive Engineer, Lower Dudhana Project, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani, At present near Motibag, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ...Respondents ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M.P. Tripathi AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. V.S. Badakh Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Arora Shyam C. … CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 04TH MARCH, 2026 PER COURT : 1.               First Appeal No. 854/2020 is preferred by the acquiring body to challenge the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, dated 22.06.2017, in LAR No. 304/2011. 2.               First Appeal No. 1559/2023 takes an exception at the instance of the claimant to the same judgment as stated above. 3.               Heard Mr Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body and Mr Manish Tripathi, learned counsel for the claimant. 4.               In the First Appeal preferred by the acquiring body, the following submissions are made by Mr Arora : 3 8FA854.20.odt a.       The testimony of the expert ought not to have been taken into consideration, and the reference Court should have seen whether corroborative evidence was on record. b.    Judgment in First Appeal No. 2259/2021 is not a binding precedent and, therefore, will have to be tested in this appeal. 5.               In the First Appeal preferred by the claimant, the following arguments were made : a.       The expert has entered the witness box, proved the report, and the other witness corroborates his testimony. b.    The judgment in First Appeal No. 2259/2021 decides the issue regarding the nature of the land and the compensation granted. 6. The first question is whether First Appeal No. 2259/2021 can be relied upon or not? 7. The land of the claimant situated in admeasuring 4 H 13 R and 0.23 R, situated in Gat No. 93 B, Mauje Mapegaon (Bk.), Taluka Partur, District Jalna, was subjected to acquisition at the hands of the government and notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition 4 8FA854.20.odt Act was issued on 07.11.2002.The land in question was acquired for the Lower Dudhna project. 8. After the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award and since claimant was dissatisfied, they preferred reference to Section 18 of land acquisition act, which was forwarded and registered as LAR No. 304/2011.Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna, on 22.06.2017, decided the reference and granted enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,70,986/- and the interest thereon. 9. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that 1 H 30 R was treated as Hangami Bagayat land and rate was fixed at Rs. 3750/-. 2 H 11 R was treated as Jirayat land and rate was fixed at Rs. 2500/-. 0.27 R was treated as Barmahi Bagayat land and rate was fixed at Rs. 5000/-. 0.23 R was treated as Pot Kharab land and rate was fixed at Rs. 1250/-. Thus, the total area referred to above would come to 3 H 91 R, whereas the total land acquired was 4 H 36 R. 10. First Appeal No. 2259/2021 was decided by the coordinate bench of this Court on 14.11.2025, in which the judgment and award dated 19.10.2016, passed by the reference Court in LAR No. 830/2011, was challenged. The Court in that case observed that the chunk of land 5 8FA854.20.odt was acquired from the Villages of Satona (Bk.), Maptegaon, Raniwahegaon, Deola, and Hondegaon by separate notifications. Court then took into consideration the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ali Mohammad Beigh and Others Versus State of J & K, reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518, and then observed that the village Satona is adjoining to Mapegaon, hence rate of Rs. 2500/- per R can be treated as market rate and by escalation, and then the appellants therein were held entitled to receive Rs. 4426/- per R for their land. Accordingly, the First Appeal was allowed, and the award was consequently modified. 11. Both the learned counsels submitted that the rate of Rs. 2500/-, which was mentioned in First Appeal No. 2259/2021, was for Jirayat land and the same is in the present appeal also. Thus, it is contended that the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 4426/- per R for Jirayat land. 12. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that the chunk of land was acquired for the same purpose, i.e., the Lower Dudhna project. Consequently, the land was acquired from the villages of Satona (Bk.), Mapegaon, Raniwahegaon, Deola, and Hondegaon. So far as the land in the present appeal is concerned, it is situated in the village of Mapegaon. In First Appeal No. 2259/2021, it has already been held by 6 8FA854.20.odt the co-ordinate bench of this Court that the village Satona is adjoining the village of Mapegaon and, consequently, the rate, i.e., Rs. 4426/- per R, was fixed. Thus, I find that there is no reason to take a different view from the view taken by the coordinate bench in First Appeal No. 2259/2021. It further cannot be ignored that Section 4 notification in the present First Appeal, as well as in First Appeal No. 2259/2021, was issued in the year 2002. Therefore, the escalation was also appropriately considered. Thus, I conclude that the claimant would be entitled to the rate of Rs. 4426/- per R for the Jirayat land. 13. This takes me to the next contention of Mr. Arora, that the testimony of an expert witness should not be taken into consideration as it is . The law in this regard is crystal clear.The relevant judgments are The Special Land Acquisition Officer and another v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and Others , reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168, and State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Jai Lal and Others, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 280. The gist of the aforesaid judgments is that an expert is not a witness to the facts, his evidence is like an opinion, the opinion is not binding on the Court, and the Court has to examine and assist the opinion independently. An expert who submits his report to the Court for 7 8FA854.20.odt consideration must place before the Court the entire material on which he arrives at the opinion given to the Court. It is the duty of the Court to assist the opinion in the light of the material relied upon by the valuer. 14.              Learned counsel Mr Arora, also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekhar and Others Versus Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3012 and contended that the Court's previous decision would not be binding but would only guide in deciding the controversy. 15. The gist of this judgment is that the requirement is that, the judgment which is relied upon by the claimant, must be proved by the person relying upon it by adducing evidence aliunde, and that, due regard be given to all attendant facts and circumstances, so that it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. 16.              In the aforesaid background, the testimony of the agriculture expert whom the claimant examined is required to be taken into consideration. P.W. 2 – the expert was examined below exhibit 26, who had filed his evidence on an affidavit dated 27.09.2016. P.W. 2 by name Dr Kamalnayan Uttamchand Sanghavi, had stated about his qualifications, including a PhD. His experience includes 34 years as a 8 8FA854.20.odt Professor at Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, 2 years as a Principal, and years as a valuer. He stated that he had received several awards, published several books, and written various articles. He stated that he had visited the claimant's acquired land and inspected the agricultural field. Thereafter, by scriptural methods and based on his experience, he had given the valuation report. 17. He also deposed that while deciding the valuation of the trees, the sale-purchase transactions of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee for the years 2002 and 2003 were taken into consideration. He also produced record Exhibit 30, which shows his PhD papers, and Exhibit 31, which shows his Master of Science degree in Agriculture. Exhibit 37 was a chart of fruit rates provided by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jalgaon. The valuation of the trees was mentioned in Exh. 33, which gives the general condition of the trees, height, stem girth, spread, present age, future age, annual fruit production per tree, average in kilograms, and wholesale market rates in Rs. / Kg. This witness was then cross-examined by the acquiring body, during which he admitted that the government did not appoint him as an expert valuer. He also admitted that the rates at the different Agricultural Produce Market Committees are different. Other suggestions given to him were denied. 9 8FA854.20.odt 18. In cross-examination at the behest of original respondent no. 3, he stated that 14 years ago, he inspected the agricultural field and the claimant had called him telephonically, so also he had seen the 7/12 extract of the year 2002. He stated that the trees he saw in the agricultural field were mentioned in the 7/12 extract. He stated that in his report, he did not mention the receipts showing the sale and purchase of the fruits and numbers. He admitted that Jalna has a big market and his report is based on the Jalna Agricultural Market Committee’s report. The other suggestions given were denied. Thus, it can be seen that this man has more than 34 years of experience; on the date of deposition, he was 75 years old, had written various books, had visited the acquired land, and, using a scriptural method, had valued the property. 19. As far as corroboration is concerned, Indrajit Wagh, the claimant, was examined by the claimant based on evidence on an affidavit dated 05.07.2016. In his deposition, he has provided a chart showing the types of trees, numbers, ages, and annual income. His testimony is very specific. The cross-examination of this witness shows that, except for giving the suggestions, nothing fruitful is brought on record. Moreover, Exhibit 23, which is a 7/12 extract, also shows the cropping pattern. The holistic reading of the testimony of P.W. 1 and 10 8FA854.20.odt P.W. 2 would clearly reveal that there is nothing to disbelieve the version advanced by the claimant. 20. Thus, it can be said that the evidence of the expert was rightly taken into consideration by the reference Court. In that view of the matter and since the evidence on record was rightly appreciated by the reference Court, so also because the part of the issue was decided by virtue of the judgment dated 14.11.2025, in First Appeal No. 2259/2021, I pass the following order : ORDER i.       First Appeal No. 854/2020, preferred by the acquiring body, stands dismissed. ii.      First Appeal No. 1559/2023 is partly allowed. iii.     The claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,426/- per R for dry land; consequently, compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,213/- per R for Potkharab land, Rs. 6,639/- per R for semi-irrigated land, and Rs. 8,825/- per R for irrigated land. iv.     The modified award shall be drawn accordingly. v.      The claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees. 11 8FA854.20.odt vi.     The claimant will not be entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. vii.    The claimant will be entitled to the withdrawal of the amount along with interest. viii.   Pending Civil Application also stands disposed of. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) SPC