1 fa1049-91common j rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1049 of 1991 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s. Ramanlal Deochand Shah .. Respondent Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. P. B. Shah for respondent. ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.179 OF 1992 Ramanlal Deochand Shah .. Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P. B. Shah for the appellant. Mr. A. R. Patil for respondent – State. ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1050 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s. Madanlal Mohanlal Bhandiya .. Respondent Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. P. B. Shah for respondent. ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1051 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s. Mahadev R. Kulkarni .. Respondents Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. P. B. Shah for respondent. ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.181 OF 1992 2 fa1049-91common j Mahadev R. Kulkarni .. Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents .... Mr. P. B. Shah for the appellant. Mr. A. R. Patil for respondent – State. .... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JUNE 14, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard the learned AGP appearing for the State Government and the learned counsel appearing for the original claimants. First Appeal No. 1049 of 1991 takes an exception to the Judgment and Award in Land Acquisition Reference No.12 of 1988 decided by the Civil Court at Satara which was a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award enhanced the market value to Rs.85/­ per square meter. The said First Appeal No.1049 is preferred by the State Government for challenging the said Award. First Appeal No.179 of 1992 has been preferred by the original claimant for challenging the said Award, enhancement is claimed by the original claimant. 2. First Appeal No.1050 of 1991 takes an exception to the 3 fa1049-91common j Judgment and Award in land acquisition reference No. 8 of 1988 decided by the Civil Court at Satara which was a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By the said impugned Judgment and Award, the market value of Rs.85/­ per square meter has been fixed. 3. First Appeal No.1051 of 1991 takes an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 1st February, 1991 in Land Acquisition Reference No.16 of 1988. Even in this case, the market value of Rs.85/­ per square meter has been fixed. The First Appeal No.181 of 1997 is the Cross­Appeal preferred by the claimants for claiming further enhancement in market value. 4. The submission of the learned AGP appearing for the State Government is that in the reference the claimants have not produced and proved any sale instance of a comparable land. He submitted that the claimants have not discharged the burden on them. Therefore, the references ought to have been dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the impugned judgments and awards and submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the reference Court were before the Land Acquisition Officer. He submitted that in fact, a case has been made for enhancement. 4 fa1049-91common j 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act in these cases is the same. It is well settled position of law that a claimant in a reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 is in the position of a plaintiff and therefore, the burden is on the claimant to lead evidence and to establish that the market value awarded by the collector is inadequate. If the claimants are relying upon any sale instances of the comparable lands, the sale instances have to be produced and proved before the Court by the claimants. The claimants have to prove that the sale instances were in respect of comparable lands. 6. The perusal of the record shows that in the land acquisition references subject matter of these Appeals, the claimants have not adduced evidence of any comparable sale instances. Perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the learned Judge of the reference Court has considered the sale instances set out in the Award under Section 11 of the said Act. In one case, the claimants produced one certified copy of the index­II of certain sale deed which was a post notification transaction. Only on the basis of the sale instances set out in the Award under Section 11 of the said Act, the reference Court held that market value at the rate of Rs.85/­ per square meter 5 fa1049-91common j ought to have been fixed. A reference under Section 18 is not an Appeal against the Award under Section 18. In fact, the Award under Section 11 is in the nature of an offer. The sale instances which are referred to in the Award under Section 11 could not have been considered by the Court unless the same were produced and proved before the reference Court. 7. Thus, this was a case where there is no legal evidence on record for discharging the burden on the claimants that the amount offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Hence, in absence of any legal evidence, the reference Court could not have granted enhancement in market value. The Appeals preferred by the State Government must succeed and Appeals preferred by the claimants must fail. In fact these Appeals will be governed by the decision of this Court dated 11th February, 2008 in First Appeal No.771 of 1991 (State of Maharashtra V/s. Arun B. Mohite) 8. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. First Appeal No.1049, 1050 and 1051 of 1991 are allowed with on order as to costs. The impugned 6 fa1049-91common j Judgments and Awards are quashed and set aside and the Land Acquisition References in which impugned Awards have been passed stand dismissed. ii. First Appeal No.179 of 1992 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. iii. First Appeal No.181 of 1992 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)