JUDGMENT : VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.01.2013 passed in LAC No.56/1994 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' for short) seeking for higher compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the claimant’s land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.95 situated at G.Mallenahalli Village, Tiptur taluk, was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Hemavathi canal project. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the market value and awarded compensation at Rs.2,38,443/-. Being aggrieved, the claimant sought a reference. The Reference Court held that, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the market value of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification, the claimant was not entitled to enhancement of compensation and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the reference petition and the refusal to enhance compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Sri. Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant submits that the Reference Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed on record. It is submitted that the Reference Court failed to consider that the acquired land is garden land and wrongly treated it as dry land while fixing the compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that very low compensation was awarded for coconut trees, wells, and other improvements, ignoring the reports of the Agriculture Department and other competent authorities. It is also submitted that the Reference Court applied an incorrect multiplier and relied on old decisions without considering present economic conditions and the Reference Court did not consider the fertility, irrigation facilities, future potentiality, increase in land value, and incidental damages suffered by the appellant. Hence, he seeks that this Court may interfere with the findings of the Reference Court and re-determine the compensation in a just and reasonable manner. 5. Per contra, Smt. Pramodini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court and submits that the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and correct as on the date of acquisition. 5. Per contra, Smt. Pramodini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court and submits that the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and correct as on the date of acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the market value, nature of the land, annual yield, existing trees, buildings and other relevant factors and has arrived at the valuation. It is further submitted that the said valuation was fixed in accordance with the existing parameters prescribed by the Government. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the valuation is just, fair and adequate and does not warrant any reassessment. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 7. The undisputed facts in this appeal are that the claimant’s land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas situated in Sy.No.95, situated at G. Mallenahalli Village, Tiptur Taluk, was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of Hemavathi canal project by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 28.09.1989. The LAO had passed an award on 05.06.1992 by determining the market value at Rs.2,38,443/-. Being aggrieved, the claimant sought a reference and got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 and the respondent examined RW-1 and no documents were marked. The Reference Court held that, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the market value of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification, the claimant was not entitled to enhancement of compensation and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 8. The primary contention of the appellant is that the acquired land was a "Garden Land" and not a "Dry Land" as classified by the LAO and the Reference Court. Upon meticulous perusal of the records, including the Mahazar and the list of assets found on the land at the time of preliminary notification, it is evident that the land contained a substantial number of fruit-bearing trees, including Coconut and Mango. Upon meticulous perusal of the records, including the Mahazar and the list of assets found on the land at the time of preliminary notification, it is evident that the land contained a substantial number of fruit-bearing trees, including Coconut and Mango. The existence of a borewell and the established horticultural yield are clear indicators of the land's nature. It is a settled principle that when a land is utilized for growing perpetual horticultural crops with the aid of irrigation facilities, it loses its character as 'Dry Land' and must be treated as 'Garden Land' for the purpose of determining just compensation. 9. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, we find that the Reference Court erred in its classification. A perusal of the records reveals the presence of high-yield crops and fruit-bearing trees, which have characteristic features of Garden Land. Furthermore, we take judicial notice of the discussions held between the Taluk Level Officers and the claimant in the Lok Adalat, where a compromise on valuation was reached. It is significant to note that in the said Adalat, a panel of experts arrived at a common valuation and passed a resolution vide Order No.2/2011-12 dated 15.06.2011. 10. Although the said compromise was referred to the Government and "express consent" has not yet been received, this Court cannot disregard the expert opinion of these high-ranking officials. The officials, after consulting experts of various fields, fixed the market value at Rs.2,500/- per gunta for Garden Land, for wet land Rs.2,000/- per gunta and Rs.1,500/- per gunta for Dry Land. 11. Since the evidence on record supports the claimant’s contention that the land in question is a Garden Land, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per gunta. Insofar as the trees are concerned, we affirm the conclusions and compensation awarded by LAO. 12. In view of the above, the judgment of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside to the extent of determination of the market value as the land is garden land and not a dry land. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.2,500/- per gunta. It is needless to observe that the appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits and interests in accordance with law. 13. For the aforementioned reasons: i. The appeal is allowed in part with costs. ii. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.2,500/- per gunta. It is needless to observe that the appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits and interests in accordance with law. 13. For the aforementioned reasons: i. The appeal is allowed in part with costs. ii. The judgment and award dated 08.01.2013 passed in LAC No.56/1994 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, is hereby set aside. iii. The appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per gunta with all statutory benefits along with interest as per law. However, the appellant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 3133 days.