fast22072.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 22072 OF 2010 The Executive Engineer Medium Project Division, Osmanabad .. APPELLANT VERSUS Bhairu Mukinda Bhosale (Died) through LR Dagadu Bhairu Bhosale .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.D. Dhongade, Advocate for the appellant. ----- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : JULY 28, 2011. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal preferred by the acquiring body raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Osmanabad in LAR No. 108/98 decided on 6-3-2010 granting enhancement in the amount of compensation to the claimant. 2 Agricultural land admeasuring 3 H and 7 R situate at village Karjkheda fast22072.10 2 Tq. Osmanabad came to be acquired for the purpose of Lower Terna Lift Irrigation Scheme. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4-3-1992 and, after following the procedure prescribed under the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 29-1-1997 requiring the claimant to receive compensation offered by him at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per hector i.e. Rs. 7,200/- per acre. Claimant being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered application seeking reference of the matter to the civil court. 3 In order to substantiate the claim, claimant placed reliance on the oral as well as documentary evidence. Documentary evidence consists of comparable sale instances. Sale deed at exh. 41 is dated 4-6-1993 and said sale instance is proved by examining witness PW 3 Prabhakar Adatrao. However, reference court did not take into consideration the sale instance at exh. 41 for the reason that the same is post notification sale. Infact the reference court ought to have considered the sale instance and arrive at conclusion in respect of market value by giving certain allowance to the factor that the sale instance is post notification. Another sale instance at exh. 30 which has been considered by the reference court is dated fast22072.10 3 12-12-1985 i.e. seven years prior to issuance of section 4 notification. One Govardhan Rangrao Sathe has proved the sale instance who had sold the land out of gat no. 438 to the extent of 20 R for consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. The land covered by the sale instance is at a distance of 1/2 kms. from the acquired land. Reference court while considering the evidence placed on record by the claimant for the purpose of determining market value of the land, granted allowance at the rate of 10 percent every year on account of the sale instance being a pre-notification sale. Reference court thus arrived at finding that proper market value of the acquired land shall be Rs. 39,000/- per acre. 4 I have perused the judgment and award passed by the reference court and heard arguments advanced by Mr. S.D. Dhongade, learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the copies of evidence made available by learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the appeal. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the first appeal presented by the acquiring body does not need favourable consideration. The amount of compensation directed to be paid by the reference court is quite meager and the finding in respect of market value of the land is reached on appreciation of evidence placed on record by the fast22072.10 4 claimant. In this view of the matter, appeal does not call for any consideration. Appeal therefore stands dismissed. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R.M. BORDE, J.) dyb