JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. The present appeal is against the judgment of reference Court in L.A.C. No. 459/2005. 2. The land owner challenged the award of Land Acquisition Officer in respect of acquisition of land of Gat No. 75 of Village Barad, Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal which was acquired for Bembla Projet. Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 82,222/- per hectare for 0.66 H.R. and Rs. 21,551/- per hectare for 2.63 H.R. Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation in respect of food bearing trees at the rate of Rs. 1360/- per tree for 682 sweet lime trees, Rs. 1296/- per tree for 30 guava trees, Rs. 483/- per tree for 10 lemon trees, Rs. 350/- for one orange tree and Rs. 515/- per tree for 7 berry trees. Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs. 6247/- for valuation of pipe line. 3. In the reference Court, land owner examined valuer Shri Subhash Ramrao Tayade. He has stated in his evidence that he personally went to the field of appellant, measured trees and opined that the appellant is entitled for compensation as stated below. For 682 Sweet lime trees Rs. 7808/- per tree For 40 Guava trees Rs. 3178/- per tree For 10 Lemon trees Rs. 3178/- per tree For 1 Orange tree Rs. 8281/- For 7 Berry trees Rs. 3239/- per tree He was thoroughly cross-examined. In the cross-examination, he has stated that during his visit, he has compared JMR (Joint Measurement Report), Exhibit 41 and Exhibit 42. He has further stated that no difference was found in respect of age and number of trees as per the JMR. He has stated that he is an expert. As per his opinion, land owner is entitled for the rate as stated above. 4. The reference Court partly allowed the land acquisition case and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per hectare in respect of land acquired for Gat No. 75 for area 2 Hectare 63 Ares and at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per hectare in respect of land acquired for Gat No. 75 of 0 Hectare 66 Ares of Village Barad, Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal. Claim of land owner in respect of fruit bearing trees is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment of reference Court, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard learned Advocate Shri Nakshane for the appellant. 3,00,000/- per hectare in respect of land acquired for Gat No. 75 of 0 Hectare 66 Ares of Village Barad, Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal. Claim of land owner in respect of fruit bearing trees is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment of reference Court, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard learned Advocate Shri Nakshane for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned judgment is not challenged by the respondents. Therefore, there is no dispute about the compensation granted for acquired land. Learned counsel has pointed out judgment of reference Court, more particularly, paragraph no. 10 of the judgment and submitted that reference Court has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra,2012 MhLJ 9 and therefore denied the compensation for fruit bearing trees. In support of his submissions, he pointed out following decisions. (1) Pramilabai wd/o Manguji Ade and ors. State of Maharashtra and anr., (2018) 3 MhLJ 787 (2) Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) through Lrs. And ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC 325 (3) Chindhra Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2012) AIR SC 481 and (4) Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 821/2006 (State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Ramkrishna s/o Tukaram Bhakre) and two other matters decided on 20-6-2019. 6. Learned counsel Shri Patil for the respondent no. 3 - acquiring body supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the valuer has not given the rate which were compared by him from exorbitant. Whatever the rates and details of trees (age, numbers etc.) given by the Land Acquisition Officer are perfectly legal and correct. Learned counsel has submitted that the reference Court has rightly relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra. There is no merit in the appeal, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. 7. Perused the evidence of valuer Shri Tayade. He personally went to the field of land owner/appellant. He has measured the trees. He has verified JMR, Exhibit Nos. 41 and 42. All those trees were also shown in Exhibit Nos. 41 and 42. There is no dispute about the number of trees claimed by the appellant. Land Acquisition Officer also given number of trees in the award. He personally went to the field of land owner/appellant. He has measured the trees. He has verified JMR, Exhibit Nos. 41 and 42. All those trees were also shown in Exhibit Nos. 41 and 42. There is no dispute about the number of trees claimed by the appellant. Land Acquisition Officer also given number of trees in the award. As per the award, the numbers and age of trees are matching with numbers and age of trees stated by valuer Shri Tayade. Valuer Shri Tayade is very well qualified person who is having expert knowledge in the field of Horticulture. He has produced Certificate of Life Member of All India Institute of Valuer, Delhi at Exhibit 69. He has produced certificate of approved valuer at Exhibit 70, Degree of post graduation from Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola at Exhibit 71 and Diploma of Membership from the Institution of Valuers at Exhibit 72. As per his opinion, land owner is entitled for compensation as given in the above chart. There is no dispute that all the land along with trees are acquired by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation for Bembla Project. The land owner is deprived of income of fruit bearing trees in addition to land. Therefore, land owner is entitled for compensation of fruit bearing trees. The amount of compensation given by Land Acquisition Officer is very less and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation as given by valuer Shri Tayade. 8. The judgment in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra has wrongly interpreted by the trial Court. In the said judgment, the reference Court granted compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees but High Court reversed the judgment. In the appeal, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of High Court and remanded back the matter to the High Court for fresh decision. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Apex court denied the claim of land owner in respect of fruit bearing trees. 9. Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra was considered by this Court in the case of Pramilabai wd/o Manguji Ade and ors. State of Maharashtra and anr., (2018) 3 MhLJ 787 . In this judgment, it is held that the land owner is entitled for compensation of land and also for fruit bearing trees separately. 10. State of Maharashtra was considered by this Court in the case of Pramilabai wd/o Manguji Ade and ors. State of Maharashtra and anr., (2018) 3 MhLJ 787 . In this judgment, it is held that the land owner is entitled for compensation of land and also for fruit bearing trees separately. 10. This Court has decided First Appeal No. 821/2006 and other connected matters by judgment dated 20-6-2019 in which the enhanced amount of compensation for fruit bearing trees is maintained. Therefore, it is clear that the land owner is entitled for compensation for fruit bearing trees in addition to the compensation for the acquired land. 11. The following chart demonstrate the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, rate claimed by the land owner and value declared by the valuer Shri Tayade. Sr. No. Component Rate granted by LAO Rate demanded by Claimant Rate demanded by Valuer 1 Sweet Lime Trees 682 @ Rs. 1360/-per tree for 682 trees @ Rs. 8000/-per tree @ Rs. 7808/-per tree for 682 trees 2 Guava trees 40 @ Rs. 1298/-per tree for 40 trees @ Rs. 5000/-per tree @ Rs. 3178/- per tree for 40 trees 3 Lemon trees 10 @ Rs. 483/-per tree for 10 @ Rs. 3000/-per tree for 10 trees @ Rs. 3178/- per tree for 10 trees 4 Orange tree 1 @ Rs. 1350/-for 1 tree @ Rs. 8000/- @ Rs. 8281/-for 1 tree 5 Berry 7 Rs. 515/- Rs. 1500/- Rs. 3239/- 6 Well Rs. 59,748/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,80,000 12. Valuer Shri Tayade is an expert. As per his valuation, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of fruit bearing trees. Nothing is on record to disbelieve the testimony of Shri Tayade. 13. The appellant/land owner is entitled for compensation at the rate shown by Shri Tayade, vide Exhibit 73 which is given in the above chart. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. 14. The respondents are directed to pay the compensation as per the rate shown by Shri Tayade vide Exhibit 73. 15. Deficit Court Fees, if any, shall be paid by the appellant after calculation of the amount of the compensation. 16. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.