DIGAMBAR HANUMANT BALWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are preferred against the common judgment and award dtd. 8/6/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur in L.A.R. No. 991 of 2001 (Old No. 764 of 1997), L.A.R. No. 990 of 2001 (Old No. 763 of 1997), L.A.R. 985 of 2001 (Old No. 758 of 1997), L.A.R. 991 of 2001 (Old No. 765 of 1997), L.A.R. 1069 of 2001 (Old No. 37 of 1998), L.A.R. 997 of 2001 (Old No. 770 of 1997) and L.A.R. 993 of 2001 (Old No. 766 of 1997), respectively,by which the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation @ Rs.520.00 and 460/- per Are for group I and group II lands, as shown in the following chart:-

(2.) Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out the pleadings and evidence and submitted that the learned Reference Court failed to weigh the evidence of claimants in its proper perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion by holding that the acquired lands of all the claimants are non irrigated lands. He pointed out the 7x12 extracts which shows that there was water facility to irrigate the lands acquired in first appeal Nos. 9 of 2013, 10 of 2013, 1522 of 2022, 1682 of 2022 and 1681 of 2022. He submitted that it is the choice of the agriculturists whether to cultivate crops using water or not; however, if they do not do so, it cannot be held that their lands are not irrigated. He further pointed out the receipts of the payment received from the sugarcane factory to show that sugarcane crops were being cultivated on those lands and thus, those lands were irrigated lands. He fairly concedes that the lands in first appeal Nos. 1680 of 2022 and 1523 of 2022 are non irrigated lands.

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellants placed reliance on the following authorities:-