JUDGMENT : 1. The judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division Buldhana in L.A.C. No. 119 of 1995 is challenged in the appeal by the original claimant on the ground that the amount of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court is not at all adequate, fair and just. 2. Facts of the appeal can be stated as under: The land belonging to appellant bearing land Gut No.4, out of which 4 hector, situate vilalge Dahigaon, Tal. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana was acquired for percolation tank, by virtue of notification dated 8.7.1993. The LAO had passed the award on 17.4.1995 granting compensation @ Rs. 28,000/per hector for the land, Rs. 24,695/towards the trees standing in the land. 3. As per the grievance of the appellant, the compensation awarded by the LAO was quite meager considering the potentiality of the land and the income which the appellant was deriving from it. It was also submitted that the compensation awarded for the fruit trees also very meager, having regard to the fact that 612 trees of sweet lemon, Sitafal, Ramfal and mango trees were standing in the land and they were irrigated from the water in the well. The appellant, therefore, approached the Reference Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9 lakhs in respect of the fruit bearing trees and Rs. 1,50,000/per hector towards acquired land. 4. This petition came to be resisted by the respondent contending interalia that the amount of compensation fixed by LAO is just, reasonable, fair as he has taken into consideration all the factors and therefore, no interference is warranted in the said award. 5. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court framed necessary issues. In support of his case, appellant examined himself and produced various sale instances and the receipts of Agriculture Produce Market Committee. Further he also examined one witness by name Ramkrushna to prove the registered saledeed at Exh. 63. 6. On appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence produced on record by the appellant, the Reference Court enhanced the market price of the acquired land @ Rs. 40,000/per hector. Further he also examined one witness by name Ramkrushna to prove the registered saledeed at Exh. 63. 6. On appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence produced on record by the appellant, the Reference Court enhanced the market price of the acquired land @ Rs. 40,000/per hector. However, as regards, the compensation awarded towards fruit bearing trees, the Reference Court was pleased to hold that, there was no evidence produced on record by the appellant to prove that the compensation awarded by the LAO is inadequate. 7. While challenging this judgment and order of the Reference Court, submission of learned counsel for appellant is that, Reference Court should have kept in mind the fact that it was a compulsory acquisition and as a result of such acquisition, appellant is rendered landless and therefore, the compensation awarded towards acquisition of the land needs to be enhanced. Similarly, it is submitted that, even as regards the mango trees considering that there was 612 fruit bearing trees in the land, the compensation awarded in lumpsum towards yield price of these trees is also inadequate and hence interference is required. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment of the Reference Court and find that the Reference Court has considered all the sale instances which were produced on record by the Appellant and found that as the sale instances at Exhs. 53, 58 and 59 were executed after notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, they can not be considered; whereas sale instances at Exh. 54, 55 and 66 were before notification and therefore, the Reference Court has considered them for determining market price of the acquired land. Reference Court found that the sale instances produced at Exhs. 54, 55 & 56 were of the land situate Dahigaon and then it was noted by the Reference Court that as regards the sale instances at Exh. 55, it was of Gut No. 68 of village Dahigaon and for consideration of Rs. 50,000/on 3.6.1992 whereas sale instance Exh. 56 pertains to 1 hector land of the same village and it was for consideration of Rs. 35,000/dated 24.4.1994. 9. 55, it was of Gut No. 68 of village Dahigaon and for consideration of Rs. 50,000/on 3.6.1992 whereas sale instance Exh. 56 pertains to 1 hector land of the same village and it was for consideration of Rs. 35,000/dated 24.4.1994. 9. Having regard to those sale instances on which appellant himself has placed reliance, it can be clearly seen that the market price of the land at Dahigaon at the relevant time being 35,000/- to 50,000/- per hector and after considering the income and sale instances relied upon by the appellant, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the acquired land to the tune of Rs. 40,000/per hector. It thus appears to be just, reasonable and correct. Hence, no interference is warranted therein. 10. As regards the compensation awarded towards fruit bearing trees, the Reference Court has considered the entries in 7/12 extract which showed that there were 600 sweet lemon trees, 100 Sitafal and Ramfal trees. In the joint measurement report also, it was found that there were total 612 trees standing in the acquired land. The appellant has produced on record the APMC receipts at exh. 38 to 50 showing the approximate yield from those trees. He has also produced the sale receipt of private merchant at exh. 51. According to appellant the land was fertile, there was also evidence to show the existence of well in the land and that the land was irrigated by water from the well. As per the observations made by Reference Court, this evidence has remained unchallenged. However, the Reference Court has refused to enhance the compensation, only on the ground that appellant has not adduced expert evidence nor produced any valuation report. 11. However, in my considered opinion absence of expert evidence should not prove fetal to the claimant as it is the duty of the Court to determine the just, reasonable and fair amount of compensation. The evidence in this case shows that these trees were of the age of 5 to 6 years and appellant was getting substantial income from those trees. However, compensation which was awarded by the LAO and confirmed by the Reference Court to these 612 trees is of only Rs. 36,975/. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for appellant, the compensation therefore as awarded by the LAO and confirmed by Reference Court, comes to Rs. 104 per tree. However, compensation which was awarded by the LAO and confirmed by the Reference Court to these 612 trees is of only Rs. 36,975/. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for appellant, the compensation therefore as awarded by the LAO and confirmed by Reference Court, comes to Rs. 104 per tree. Needless to state that, this compensation is, on the face of it also, very meager and therefore, even in the absence of any evidence of the Expert or Valuer, the Reference Court should have enhanced it so as to make it reasonable, fair and just. Having regard to the evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the compensation for these trees can be enhanced to the tune of Rs.500 per tree, as there is no specific evidence on record in respect of income of different trees. To this extent the interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court. The appeal is thus allowed partly. The judgment and order of the Reference Court is modified to the extent of enhancing compensation for the trees @ Rs. 500 per tree. The L.A.O. is directed to calculate the compensation towards 612 trees on the basis of Rs. 500/per tree and pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant claimant within three months with all statutory benefits. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.