When land can be treated as irrigated land for purpose of grant of compensation under land acquisition?

With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have
gone through the findings recorded by the Reference Court.  In
Paragraph No. 16, the Reference Court has held as under;
"16.  In the instant case, the applicants came with the case
that   the  lands  acquired  by  the Land Acquisition Officer
belonging to them are irrigated land. The applicants have
filed the 7/12 extract (Exh.21 to Exh.25) on the record.  I
have carefully gone through the 7/12 extract.  The 7/12
extract (Exh.21) is in respect of agricultural land bearing
Survey No. 296/1 which is situated at village Maregaon.
The   7/12   extract   (Exh.21)   clearly   shows   that   the   land
bearing   Survey   No.   296/1   admeasuring   0.56   HR   is
irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown
Survey No. 296/1 of village Moregaon as irrigated land in
award   (Exh.26).     All   the   land   except   Survey   No.   57
admeasuring 0.86 HR situated at village Akapur are dry
crop land. The 7/12 extract (exh.25) clearly shows that the
land bearing Survey No. 57 belonging to the applicants is
irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown
Survey No. 57 of Village Akapur as an irrigated land on the
award (Exh.26) at page no.11"
The finding is based upon 7/12 extract as well the award at
Exh.26 which clearly indicate that two survey Nos. i.e. 296/1
and part of Survey No. 57 were irrigated lands.   It cannot,
therefore, be said that the Reference Court has committed an
error in holding that the lands were irrigated lands.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, 
...VERSUS...
 Arun Ganpatrao Shende,

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE    :     21stMARCH 2016 .
Citation:2016(3) ALLMR 571

1] In Land Acquisition Case No. 25 of 1996, under
Section   34   of   the   Maharashtra   Industrial   Development
Corporation Act, 1968,  the Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation   for   dry   crop   land.   The   Reference   Court   has
granted enhancement at the rate of Rs.30,000/­ per hectare
against the rate of Rs.15,000/­ per hectare granted by the Land
Acquisition Officer.  The acquiring body is before this Court to
challenge the enhancement so granted.
2] Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant M.I.D.C, the acquiring body, raises the point that,
there is no basis to hold that the lands in question were irrigated
lands.
3] Shri Agnihotri, however, does not press the point
regarding limitation decided by the trial Court on the ground that
the Exh. 59 and the other documents placed on record shows
that the notice was issued to the claimant asking him to remain
present on 04.04.1994 to receive the amount of compensation.
Thus, from 04.04.1994 the reference  was filed within the period
of limitation.

4] With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have
gone through the findings recorded by the Reference Court.  In
Paragraph No. 16, the Reference Court has held as under;
"16.  In the instant case, the applicants came with the case
that   the  lands  acquired  by  the Land Acquisition Officer
belonging to them are irrigated land. The applicants have
filed the 7/12 extract (Exh.21 to Exh.25) on the record.  I
have carefully gone through the 7/12 extract.  The 7/12
extract (Exh.21) is in respect of agricultural land bearing
Survey No. 296/1 which is situated at village Maregaon.
The   7/12   extract   (Exh.21)   clearly   shows   that   the   land
bearing   Survey   No.   296/1   admeasuring   0.56   HR   is
irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown
Survey No. 296/1 of village Moregaon as irrigated land in
award   (Exh.26).     All   the   land   except   Survey   No.   57
admeasuring 0.86 HR situated at village Akapur are dry
crop land. The 7/12 extract (exh.25) clearly shows that the
land bearing Survey No. 57 belonging to the applicants is
irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown
Survey No. 57 of Village Akapur as an irrigated land on the
award (Exh.26) at page no.11"
The finding is based upon 7/12 extract as well the award at
Exh.26 which clearly indicate that two survey Nos. i.e. 296/1
and part of Survey No. 57 were irrigated lands.   It cannot,
therefore, be said that the Reference Court has committed an
error in holding that the lands were irrigated lands.  
In   view   of   above,  there   is   no   substance   in   the
appeal. The same is dismissed.
JUDGE