:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sindhudurg at Kudal) ..Appellant Vs. 1. Shri Manohar Sripad Gavade aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Oros Budruk, Taluka Kudal, District Sindhudurg. 2. Shri Digambar Sripad Gavade aged 48 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Oros Budruk, Taluka Kudal, District Sindhudurg. ..Respondents Ms. S.P. Manchekar, AGP for appellant-State. Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar for respondents. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : March 16, 2009. Date : March 16, 2009. Date : March 16, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.): 1. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) at the instance of the State Government arises from the award :2: dated 14/3/1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri at Sawantwadi in L.A.R. No. 29 of 1991. 2. The Government of Maharashtra proceeded to acquire the claimants land for the establishment of Headquarter of Sindhudurg District at village Oros by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 28/2/1989. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 14/3/1991 and determine the compensation of land on the basis of the land revenue as shown below:- Sr.No. Land Revenue Compensation per R. ------ ------------ ------------------- 1. Rs.0.01 to Rs.2.50 Rs.100/- 2. Rs.2.51 to Rs.5 Rs.150/- 3. More than Rs.5/- Rs.200/- 3. Being aggrieved by the market rate granted by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the land revenue, the claimants submit an application under Section 18 of the Act and the Collector, therefore, made the reference. Before the Reference Court the :3: claimants filed their statement of claim (Exh.19) and demanded compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer filed his Written Statement/reply (Exh.34) to the statement of claim and submitted that the claim made was without any merits and the Land Acquisition Officer hd awarded the appropriate market rate. On behalf of the claimants, Manohar Sripad Gavade had stepped in the witness box and his depositions were recorded at Exh.42 whereas on behalf on behalf of the State Government none stepped in the witness box. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was placed before the Reference Court along with the list at Exh.3. 4. The Reference Court noted that though the claimants did not rely upon any sale instances, the sale instances referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award themselves indicated that the fixing of market value on the basis of land revenue was not justifiable and that was not the correct method of determining the market value. The Reference Court relied upon the sale instance no.14 as set out :4: in the award passed by the LAO himself. The said sale instance was for the land admeasuring 27 Are from Survey No. 123/25 of village Oros and adjoining to the Kudal District Market Committee as per the sale dated 27/2/1986 and the market rate was Rs.1000/- per Are. The LAO himself stated in his award that in the year 1989 the said rate could be fixed at Rs.1300/- per Are. However, he rejected the said sale instance as it was of higher market rate. The Reference Court did not agree with the said reasoning and held that at least Rs.1000/- per Are ought to be given as the market rate for the claimants’ land with reference to the date of acquisition i.e. June 1989. Ms. Manchekar the learned AGP as relied upon the Judgment of this court in First Appeal No. 143 of 1996 (dated 7/12/2007 - Single Bench) and prayed for allowing the appeal so as to set aside the impugned award. We are not impressed by this submission. 5. Even if the claimants did not place any sale instances before the Reference Court, they emphatically stated that acquired land was along side the national highway and was about 1/2 k.m. away from :5: the proposed Sindhudurg Railway Station. Index II of the said land was also placed on record at Exh.44 and the said sale instance was referred to by the LAO but rejected on an erroneous ground stating that the price so offered was high. The Reference Court rightly turned down the said reasoning and proceeded to accept and rely upon the said sale instance for fixing the market rate at Rs.1000/- per Are in the impugned award. In our considered opinion no fault could be found with the Reference Court and having regards to the pleadings in L.A.R. No. 29 of 1991, we are satisfied that the reliance by the learned AGP on the judgment of this court in First Appeal No. 143 of 1996 is misplaced. 6. Hence, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)