JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. First appeal is filed by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) against the judgment of the reference Court. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in short is as under : The land of the respondent no.1 situated at Village Mendki, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur bearing Survey No. 232-A and 232-B, area 4.65 H.R. and 1.57 H.R. acquired for Chikhli Nala Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 22-1-1998. Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) passed award on 17-6-2000 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 55,500/- per Hectare and Rs. 48,000/- per Hectare respectively. L.A.O. has granted compensation for fruit bearing trees of Rs. 8,22,864/-. The respondent no. 1 challenged the award before the reference Court. The reference Court has relied on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurucharan Singh and anr., (1996) AIR SC 106 and came to the conclusion that land includes trees and, therefore, separate compensation for trees can not be granted, however, reference Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per tree for Orange trees and Mosambi trees, Rs. 1500/- per tree for Jamberi trees, Rs. 700/- for Guava tree, Rs. 500/- for Anola tree and Rs. 700/- per tree for Ber trees. 3. The respondent no. 1 has filed Cross Objection No. 10/2011 and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per Hectare for the land and Rs. 5,000/- per tree for Orange and Mosambi trees. 4. Heard learned Advocate Shri Kasat for Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation. He has submitted that the respondent no. 1 failed to prove the valuation of land. He has not produced any single sale instance of Village Mendki to show that his land fetches more value than Rs. 55,500/- per Hectare. Reference Court has rightly rejected his claim for compensation of land. He has submitted that the reference Court has wrongly granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per tree for Mosambi and Orange trees and, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment. 5. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Tiwari for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. She has supported the impugned judgment. 6. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar for the respondent no. 1/cross objector. She has pointed out judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. 5. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Tiwari for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. She has supported the impugned judgment. 6. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar for the respondent no. 1/cross objector. She has pointed out judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra,2012 MhLJ 9 and Chindhra Fakira Patil (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2011) 10 SCC 787 . Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra that separate compensation for fruit bearing trees and land shall be granted. In view of the judgment of Chindhra Fakira Patil (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (supra), the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurucharan Singh and anr. (supra) relied by the reference Court is not applicable. Hence, the respondent no. 1 is entitled for separate compensation for the acquired land. 7. In respect of valuation of trees, learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar has pointed out decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 676/2005 with connected appeal dated 15-1-2018 in which the valuation of expert Shri Dadan Borkar was accepted and this Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per tree for Orange and Mosambi trees upholding the judgment of the reference Court. 8. There is no dispute that this Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per tree for Orange and Mosambi trees in other matters. There is no dispute that evidence of expert is accepted by the reference Court and upheld by this Court in some matters. Learned Advocate Shri Kasat has submitted that evidence of Shri Dadan Borkar cannot be relied upon because he has not produced the record before the reference Court. In support of his submissions, he has pointed out judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and ors., (1995) Supp2 SCC 168. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph no. 17 as under. 17. In support of his submissions, he has pointed out judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and ors., (1995) Supp2 SCC 168. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph no. 17 as under. 17. Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the court giving the market value of the acquired lands, the court may choose to act upon such report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired lands, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is correct. 9. There is no dispute that evidence of Dadan Borkar who is a Horticulture expert is accepted by this Court in other several matters. Moreover, Dadan Borkar has adduced his evidence. Before the reference Court, he has stated on oath that he personally visited the field of respondent no. 1 and found Orange, Mosambi and other trees. As per the JMR and his personal observations, trees were well grown up and having mrigbahar etc. He has specifically stated that all the trees are well grown up and he has stated the valuation of the trees. Though he has stated more valuation of the trees, in view of the decisions of this Court in various other matters, the respondent no. 1 is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per tree for Orange and Mosambi trees. There is no dispute about the valuation of other trees. 10. In respect of the valuation of land, learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar has submitted that land of the respondent no. 1 was irrigated land and, therefore, he is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per Hectare. Learned Advocate Shri Kasat has strongly opposed the prayer and submitted that the respondent no. 1 has not produced a single sale instance of Village, Mendki to show the valuation as prayed. 11. During the course of submissions, learned Advocate for the parties have pointed out the copy of award. L.A.O. has compared the sale instances while passing the award. L.A.O. has taken into consideration all the sale instances from the year 1993 to 1998 of Village, Mendki. 11. During the course of submissions, learned Advocate for the parties have pointed out the copy of award. L.A.O. has compared the sale instances while passing the award. L.A.O. has taken into consideration all the sale instances from the year 1993 to 1998 of Village, Mendki. Chart has shown the sale instances of Rs. 42,000/-, 83,000/-, 1,50,000/-, 1,00,000/- etc. per Hectare. Learned Advocate Shri Kasat has submitted that those sale instances may be including fruit bearing trees etc. It is not specifically mentioned in the chart about the same. Columns of the chart show that whether the lands were irrigated or not irrigated. One of the sale instances of the year 1996 in respect of Field Survey No. 180-A was of Rs. 1,00,000/- per Hectare. It was a dry crop land. The chart shows that one of the land Survey No. 229 of Village, Mendki was sold in the year 1995 at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Hectare. It was a irrigated land. The land of the respondent no. 1 was also irrigated land. There is no dispute about the same. Notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1998. The respondent no. 1 though could not produce sale instances but the chart in the award itself shows the sale instances of Village, Mendki from year 1993 to 1998. One of the entry at serial no. 11 in the chart shows that one of the field of Village, Mendki was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Hectare in the year 1995. At least 10% increase should be added to this amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for every year. L.A.O. has taken the lowest price in the chart and not granted higher price to the affected land owners. The chart itself shows the price in respect of irrigated and dry crop land. The price in respect of land at serial no. 11 in the chart shows that it was in respect of irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Hectare. Therefore, respondent no. 1 is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- per Hectare. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 12. Cross objection of the respondent no. 1 is partly allowed. 13. The appellant - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation is directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. Therefore, respondent no. 1 is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- per Hectare. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 12. Cross objection of the respondent no. 1 is partly allowed. 13. The appellant - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation is directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per Hectare for the acquired land of the respondent no. 1 along with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. 14. The appellant - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation is directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per tree for Orange and Mosambi trees respectively to the respondent no. 1. 15. All compensation shall be paid along with interest as per the Land Acquisition Act. 16. Other part of the impugned judgment in respect of other trees is maintained. 17. The amount of compensation deposited/paid by the appellant - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation be deducted from the amount payable to the respondent no. 1. 18. The respondent no. 1 shall submit the calculation of amount of compensation to the appellant - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation. 19. After receipt of calculation, the appellant - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation is directed to deposit the amount of compensation before this Court within a period of six months.