202-FA-1247-2007.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 202 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1247 OF 2007 State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Bhanudas Ganpat Gore …… Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for Appellant-State Mr. P.P. Patni, Advocate h/f Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for Respondent …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 09.02.2001 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.223 of 1998, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and awarded enhanced compensation towards the acquired Sweet Lemon trees along with statutory benefits. 3. The land admeasuring 1 Hectare 47 R from Gat No.83, situated at village Bidkin, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad, belonging to the respondent-claimant, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Water Supply Scheme, Aurangabad P. No.II at Bidkin. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), was 2026:BHC-AUG:46167 202-FA-1247-2007.odt 2 published on 14.04.1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 31.03.1990, determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,250/- per R and awarding Rs.54,240/- towards 630 Sweet Lemon trees. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Reference Court did not enhance the compensation towards the acquired land, but enhanced the compensation towards 630 Sweet Lemon trees to Rs.3,78,000/-, along with statutory benefits. After adjusting the amount of Rs.84,420/- already received under the award, the learned Reference Court held that the claimant was entitled to balance enhanced compensation of Rs.2,93,580/-. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Reference Court erred in awarding enhanced compensation towards the Sweet Lemon trees in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence regarding their yield and value. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supported the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the number of 202-FA-1247-2007.odt 3 acquired Sweet Lemon trees is borne out from the Panchanama at Exhibit-33 and that the learned Reference Court, after discarding the unsupported valuation given by the panchas, rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of yield and by applying the appropriate multiplier. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the material available on record. 8. The learned Reference Court considered the claimant's evidence and the Panchanama at Exhibit-33. The Panchanama records 330 Sweet Lemon plants in the first paragraph and 300 flowering Sweet Lemon plants in the second paragraph, and thus the total number of trees was taken as 630. However, the valuation given by the panchas was not accepted, as they were not shown to be experts and there were no fruits on the trees at the time of inspection. 9. As the claimant had not produced any documentary evidence regarding the income from the Sweet Lemon fruits, the learned Reference Court assessed the annual yield at 150 fruits per tree and the price at 50 paise per fruit, thereby determining the annual income at Rs.75/- per tree. 10. Applying an eight-year multiplier, the learned Reference Court worked out the value at Rs.600/- per tree (Rs.75/- × 8) and, for 630 trees, at Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.600/- × 630). After deducting Rs.84,420/- already 202-FA-1247-2007.odt 4 awarded, the balance enhanced compensation was determined at Rs.2,93,580/-. 11. The approach adopted by the learned Reference Court is based on the evidence available on record. Significantly, the Reference Court did not accept the valuation contained in the Panchanama merely because it was recorded therein. It independently assessed the yield and price after taking into consideration the absence of documentary proof of the claimant's actual income and thereafter applied the multiplier of eight years. The assessment is, therefore, not based on conjecture or on the unsupported valuation of the panchas. 12. The appellant-State has not pointed out any specific error in the assessment of 150 fruits per tree per year, the price of 50 paise per fruit, or the application of the eight-year multiplier, nor has any contrary evidence been brought to the notice of this Court. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court do not suffer from perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. The First Appeal is dismissed. 14. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE pS P Rane