1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 85 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Subhash Tukaram Patil ...RESPONDENT ... Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the appellants Shri J.R. Shah, Advocate for respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is an appeal directed against the Award passed by the Reference Court, whereby the amount of compensation is enhanced by Rs. 4800/-. This Court on 21st January, 2010 had passed an order that the said appeal shall be heard finally at the admission stage. 2. The land of the claimant admeasuring 4 R came to be acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, awarded compensation at Rs. 1200/- for the acquired land. The Reference Court in reference made by the claimants under Section 2 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, enhanced it to Rs. 6,000/-. The said Award has been challenged by the State in the present appeal. 3. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, learned A.G.P. for the appellant /State contends that no reasons are given by the Reference Court, while enhancing the compensation amount. There are no sale transactions produced on record, to substantiate the claim made by the claimants or to substantiate the reasonings of the Reference Court to award the enhanced compensation amount. 4. Shri Shah, learned Counsel for respondent contends that the land in question was having a non-agricultural potentiality. The adjacent land were held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as having non-agricultural potentiality. In such circumstances, there was no reason, for not considering the claimants land as having non-agricultural potentiality. According to Shri Shah, the Reference Court has considered that the villages on the periphery of the city have development potentiality, because of its 3 close proximity to the city, and the Reference Court has considered this aspect and has awarded the modest amount. 5. With the assistance of learned Counsels for the parties, I have gone through the record and the Judgment passed by the Reference Court. It has been observed by the Reference Court that the Villages on the periphery of city have development potentiality, because of its proximity to the city. The infrastructure at the city is available near those villages and these villages from where the land has been acquired have inherent growth potentiality. The Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, shows that the adjacent lands were considered as having non-agricultural potentiality, and majority of the lands in the said village were put to non-agriculture use. In such circumstances, the Reference Court has held that the land of the claimant is having non- agricultural potentiality, though the claimant had claimed the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 Sq. meter, still considering this 4 aspect that no specific sale transaction or sale- deed is brought on record, the Reference Court had awarded modest amount of Rs. 15/- Sq. Meter, as an amount of compensation and same is not excessive or exorbitant. The Apex Court in the case of “Omprakash V/s. State of Hayarana & others, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5655” has held that the potentiality and the prospects of immediate development has to be taken into consideration while determining the compensation amount. 6. In the light of the same, no error is committed by the Reference Court while passing impugned Judgment and Award. The appeal as such is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 85.10FA/151110