JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 accept service. Record and proceedings is available. 2. The original claimant / appellant / questions judgment and order dated 29th August, 2013, in LAR No.401/1998, questioning deficiency in awarding compensation in respect of 300 sweet lime trees. 3. Agricultural properties of the appellant/ claimant situate at village Sultanpur and Bhandegaon, taluka Khultabad, district Aurangabad, were acquired by respondent State for construction of K.T.Weir (Kolhapur Bandhara) of village Sultanpur / Bhandegaon. There is no controversy about description of the agricultural property and ownership vesting in the appellant. Possession of the land was taken on 31st Oct., 1988. Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette on 3/6/1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer recorded the award on 19.10.1995. Notice in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act was served on 20.7.1996. The claimants feeling dissatisfied with inadequate and insufficient compensation, have filed references in time on 26.8.1996. 4. Learned Reference Court framed issues based on pleadings as under and recorded findings: SrNo SrNo Issues FINDINGS 1 Whether the claimants prove that the market valuation made by the S.L.A.O. is improper and inadequate and not as per market value? YES 2 Whether the claim petition is in limitation YES 3 Whether the claimants prove that, they accepted compensation amount under protest? If not, what is its effect? YES 4 Whether the claimants are entitled to additional amount of compensation claimed? YES 5 What order? REFERENCES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. Considering text of the evidence adduced, material available, it was expected of the learned Judge to have placed reliance to the horticultural report of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Aurangabad. The Deputy Director has determined valuation of the mango trees at the rate of Rs.127/- per tree. He has evaluated valuation of sweet lemon trees at the rate of Rs. 715/- per tree. He held that there were 300 trees as fruit bearing trees. 6. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of 200 sweet lemon trees at the rate of Rs.715/- per tree. The learned Judge has additionally awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the sweet lemon tree as 200. 715/- per tree. He held that there were 300 trees as fruit bearing trees. 6. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of 200 sweet lemon trees at the rate of Rs.715/- per tree. The learned Judge has additionally awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the sweet lemon tree as 200. The discussion in paragraph no.19 calls for interference on following grounds: (a) There was no reason to refuse to accept report of the Deputy Director of Horticulture for existing all 300 fruit bearing sweet lemon trees as the learned Judge has accepted the same report for existence of mango trees. There was no contrary evidence before the learned Judge. The assumption that 100 fruit bearing trees may not get yield is without any base, and merely a surmise. It has caused prejudice to the claimant who has lost his property / lands. In the report of the Deputy Director, he being an experienced person in the field, on physical verification, found existence of 300 trees and fixed the rate at the rate of Rs.715/- per tree. The learned Judge added only Rs.50,000/- to the figure of Rs. 76,714/- awarded by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer. (b) The calculation is again wrong. The claimants should have been awarded compensation of 300 sweet lemon trees and it should have been at the rate of Rs.715/- per tree instead of Rs. 363.57 per tree as drawn by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or adding Rs.50,000/- thereto as has been done by the learned Reference Court. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant / claimant is entitled to receive Rs.87,786/- as additional compensation in respect of the subject acquired agricultural properties. The appellant / claimant is also entitled for statutory benefit under Land Acquisition Act. First appeal partly allowed as above with costs.