JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the V.I.D.C., an Acquiring Body challenging the judgment and award dated 28/01/2005, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Darwha in L.A.C. No. 144/1999 (old) and 1150/2004 (new), thereby granting enhancement in the compensation amount as awarded to the respondent no.1 herein, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows : Respondent no.1 was the owner and possessor of the land bearing Gat No. 118 admeasuring 3 H 4 R, situated at village Sirasgaon, Tah. Ner. The land was irrigated by the water of the well situated therein. There were also fruit bearing trees like, Orange, Mango, Guava etc. The said land along with the trees came to be acquired for Sirasgaon Project by the Government in pursuance of the Notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 01/01/1998. The award was passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19/03/1999, thereby granting compensation of Rs.44,250/- per hector for 2 H 24 R land which was cultivable and Rs.15,000/- per hector for 80 R land which was uncultivable (Potkharaba). The Special Land Acquisition Officer also granted compensation of Rs.4,87,337/- for trees and Rs.38,550/- for well. 3. Being not satisfied with the said amount of compensation, respondent no.1 approached the reference court, with a grievance that his land is irrigated one and it’s market value was Rs.2,50,000/- per hector. It was contended that Special Land Acquisition Officer has committed an error in awarding separate compensation for Potkharaba land. It is denied that it was uncultivable. The grievance also was raised that the compensation awarded for the well and for fruit bearing trees, was at a very lower rate and the said compensation needs to be enhanced. 4. This petition came to be resisted by respondent nos.2 and 3 herein contending that the amount claimed by the respondent no.1 was on imaginary grounds. It was denied that market value of the acquired land can be Rs.2,50,000/- per hector. It was submitted that SLAO has, after considering all the necessary factors, such as sale instances of neighbouring land and the quality and potentiality of the acquired land, awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. Hence, no interference was warranted therein. 5. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the reference court framed necessary issues for its consideration at Exh.10. It was submitted that SLAO has, after considering all the necessary factors, such as sale instances of neighbouring land and the quality and potentiality of the acquired land, awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. Hence, no interference was warranted therein. 5. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the reference court framed necessary issues for its consideration at Exh.10. In support of his claim, respondent no.1 examined himself and Shri Vishnu Paradkar, the agriculture expert. He also led the evidence of the expert Sunil Chandkapure to prove the value of the well. Respondent nos.2 and 3, however, did not lead any evidence on record except for relying upon the award passed by the SLAO and Annexures thereto. 6. On appreciation of this evidence, learned reference court was pleased to enhance the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.44,250/- per hector to Rs.1,00,000/- per hector and for the Orange, Mango and Guava trees thereby granting total compensation of Rs.8,20,000/-. 7. Even in respect of compensation for the well, the reference court enhanced it to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.38,550/-. 8. This judgment and order of the reference court is the subject matter of the present appeal. According to learned counsel for appellant, the reference court has not at all taken into consideration the fact that the acquired land consists of a major portion, to the extent of 80 R, as Potkharaba, which was uncultivable, and hence compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector, which was for the perennially irrigated land, was not proper. Even in respect of the compensation awarded for the Orange trees, it is submitted that the Orange trees were only 4 years old, but the reference court has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per Orange tree. As regards the remaining Orange trees, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the reference court at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per Orange trees was excessive. Thus, according to learned counsel for appellant, amount awarded by the reference court being excessive and on higher side itself, needs to be modified. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has supported the judgment and order of the reference court, by pointing out that there was sufficient evidence adduced by the respondent no.1 claimant proving the market value of the acquired land as well as valuation of the trees and well. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has supported the judgment and order of the reference court, by pointing out that there was sufficient evidence adduced by the respondent no.1 claimant proving the market value of the acquired land as well as valuation of the trees and well. As against it, respondent nos.2 and 3 had not adduced single piece of evidence. Nothing much is also elicited from the cross-examination of the witnesses who were the experts and examined by the respondent no.1, and hence according to learned counsel for respondent no.1, compensation awarded by the reference court being just, legal, correct and adequate, no interference is warranted therein. 10. In view of the rival submissions made before me by learned counsel for both the parties, the only issue arise for my consideration is whether the reference court was justified in enhancing the amount of compensation to the extent as it has done. 11. As stated above, the SLAO has awarded the compensation of Rs.44,250/- per hector to the acquired land which is enhanced by the reference court to Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. In this respect, the reference court has considered the relevant sale instance produced at Exh.38 which was in respect of the land purchased by Pushpa Kawalkar, which was a dry crop land and after considering the purchase price of the said land which was Rs.37,500/-per hector and that too in the year 1996, the reference court has, allowing 10% increase per hector per year, determined the market value of the acquired land on the date of Notification as Rs.1,00,000/- per hector, considering that it was a perennially irrigated land. 12. My attention is also invited by learned counsel for respondent no.1 to the judgment of this court in First Appeal No.700/2006 with First Appeal No. 1278/2008 dated 15/09/2015, in which for the land situated in the same village, this court has maintained the compensation granted by the reference court at Rs.50,000/- per hector considering that the said land was dry crop land and for some irrigated land, compensation was at the rate of Rs.70,500/and Rs.70,000/- per hector was maintained. In the instant case, admittedly the acquired land was perennially irrigated as it was having the well situated therein, and hence having regard to this fact, the compensation enhanced by the reference court for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector from Rs.44,250/-per hector, appears to be just and reasonable, and hence does not call for interference. 13. However perusal of the judgment of the reference court makes it clear that reference court has not made any distinction between the perennially irrigated land and the uncultivable land (Potkharaba). The 7/12 extracts of the acquired land which are produced on record, clearly go to show that 80 R of the said land was uncultivable, and hence SLAO has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hector for Potkharaba land. The judgment of the reference court is conspicuously silent about this particular aspect. The reference court has granted the wholesome compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector to the acquired land, ignoring the fact that the major portion to the extent of 80 R out of the said land was uncultivable. Hence, there appears much substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for appellant that to this extent, some modification is required in the impugned judgment and order of the reference court. Considering that 80 R of the land was uncultivable and not a land which was cultivated for a particular period and then lying barren, in my considered opinion, it is just and reasonable to enhance compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per hector to this 80 R of the land which is Potkharaba, whereas for the remaining land, as held above, the compensation would be at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. 14. As regards the compensation awarded to the trees, the perusal of the judgment of the reference court shows that it has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per tree to 46 Orange trees, which were, as per the report of the expert Paradkar also, only 4 years old, whereas for the grown up Orange trees which were 199, the reference court has granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per tree. In my considered opinion, having regard to the entries made in the 7/12 extracts which show that in the year 1991-92, there is no reference of Orange trees and considering the report of the expert Paradkar itself that 46 Orange trees were only 4 years old, for those trees the compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- would be just and reasonable, whereas for 199 big Orange trees, compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- per tree would be just and reasonable. 15. As regards the judgment of this court in First Appeal No. 581/2007 (The State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Harichand Bhasu Rathod) dated 23/03/2016, which is relied upon by learned counsel for respondent no.1 to submit that compensation for Orange trees was awarded at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per tree and it was accepted by the State Government, in my considered opinion, having regard to the evidence produced in that case, it was held that compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per Orange tree will be just and reasonable one. As against it, in the present case, the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per tree for grown up Orange trees would be proper, fair and adequate. 16. As regards the compensation awarded for Guava trees which is Rs.1,000/- per tree and for three Mango trees which is Rs.5,000/-, I do not find any reason to disturb or interfere in the said valuation as there is sufficient evidence produced on record about the existence of 139 Guava trees and also existence of 3 Mango trees. It may be true that as pointed out by learned counsel for appellant, for the first time the existence of Mango trees is shown in the 7/12 extract for the year 1997-98, but then in the award, SLAO himself has mentioned the existence of 2 Mango trees, whereas the expert Paradkar has mentioned the existence of 3 Mango trees in his report and the age of Mango trees in between 30 to 35 years. There is no effective cross-examination of expert Paradkar to this aspect, and therefore compensation for the Mango trees at the rate of Rs.5000/- per tree as awarded by the reference court also does not call for any interference, it being just and fair. 17. There is no effective cross-examination of expert Paradkar to this aspect, and therefore compensation for the Mango trees at the rate of Rs.5000/- per tree as awarded by the reference court also does not call for any interference, it being just and fair. 17. In respect of the market value of the well, there is evidence of the expert Chandkapure and the enhancement awarded by the reference court on that aspect is only marginal as SLAO as awarded the compensation of Rs.38,550/- which is increased by the reference court to Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, on that count, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the reference court. 18. There is one more aspect which needs to be considered as it is pointed out by learned counsel for appellant. It pertains to the direction given by the reference court in clause (6) of its order, directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay rental at the rate of 8% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking possession of the land i.e. 10/02/1998 till the date of award on 19/03/1999. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for appellant, such direction cannot be sustainable in the present case as the possession of the land is taken after the Notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 01/01/1998, and therefore, respondent no.1claimant is entitled for additional component of 12% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of Notification dt.01/01/1998 till the date of award i.e. 19/03/1999, which is ordered by the reference court also. 19. To sum up, therefore, appeal needs to be allowed partly and accordingly stands allowed partly. 20. The compensation amount awarded by the reference court for the acquired land is modified to the extent that respondent no.1 shall be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per hector for 80 R Potkharaba land, whereas for remaining land he will be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector, as awarded by the reference court. 21. Similarly, amount of compensation awarded for the Orange trees is also modified and it is held that respondent no.1 shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per tree for 46 small trees and Rs.2,500/- per tree for 199 big grown up Orange trees. 22. 21. Similarly, amount of compensation awarded for the Orange trees is also modified and it is held that respondent no.1 shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per tree for 46 small trees and Rs.2,500/- per tree for 199 big grown up Orange trees. 22. The direction given by the reference court in clause (6) of it's order relating to payment of rental at the rate of 3% per annum is also set aside. 23. Rests of the judgment and order passed by the reference court stands confirmed. 24. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to accordingly make calculations and submit his report to the court within a period of three months. 25. Upon such calculations, appellant is entitled to refund of excess deposited amount in the court. If the entire amount is already withdrawn by respondent no.1, then appellant is entitled to recover the same from respondent no.1.