1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 32/1994 1. Mirja Mahboob Baig s/o Mirja Maqdum Baig, Age: Occu. Agriculturist, R/o Nanded Vazirabad, Nanded. (Died per his L.Rs. :- A) Rafiunnisa Begum w/o Mirza Mahboo Baig saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Household, R/o Vazirabad, Nanded. B) Mirza Anwar Iqbal Baig s/o Mirza Mahboob Baig Saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Agril. R/o As above. C) Anees Begum w/o Syed Ismail Quadri, Age : Major, Occu. Household, R/o As above. (Died through her L. Rs.) C-i) Syed Yunus Quadri s/o Syed Age: 31 years, Occu. Govt. Service, R/o Ambajogai Dist. Nanded. C-ii) Syed Yusuf Quadri s/o Syed Ismail Quadri, Age : 30 years, Occu. Business, R/o as above. C-iii) Meher Unnisa Begum w/o Shaikh Mahboob, Age : 28 years, R/o Latur. C-iv) Raisa Begum w/o Mohd. Atheruddin Qureshi, Age : 26 years, Occu. Household, R/o Nanded. C-v) Sayed Ajmad Quadri s/o Syed Ismail Quadri, Age : 25 years, Iccu. Business, 2 R/o Ambajogai. C-vi) Kaneez Fatema d/o Syed Ismail Quadri, Age : 29 years, Ocu. Household, R/o Ambajogai. C-vii) Shamim Begum d/o Syed Ismail Quadri, Age : 15 years, Occu. Educion, R/o Ambajogai. C-viii) Shazia Begum d/o Syed Ismail Quadri, Age : 13 years, Occu. Education, R/o Ambajogai. D) Mirza Lateef Rasheed Baig s/o Mirza Mahboob Baig Saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Agril. R/o As above. E) Mirza Nazeer Raheem Baig s/o Mirza Mahboob Baig Saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Agril, R/o As above. F) Afroz Saleha Begum w/o Mohd. Gyasuddin, Age : Major, Occu. Household, R/o as above. G) Mirza Feroz Shameem Baig s/o Mirza Mahboob Baig Saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Agril R/o As above. H) Ishrat Jahan w/o Ainuddin Fareequi, Age : Major, Occu. Household R/o As above. I) Mirza Irshad Saleem Baig s/o Mirza Mahboob Baig Saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Agril., R/o As above. J) Anjum Asra w/o Shaikah Moinuddin, Age : Major, Occu. Household, R/o As above. 3 K) Mirza Mushtaq Waseem Baig s/o Mirza Mahboob Baig Saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Agril. R/o As above. L) Adeeb Humara s/o Mirza Mahboob Baig Saheb, Age : Major, Occu. Household R/o as above. ...Appellants. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Per District Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, B & C Nanded, First Floor, Janata Market, College Road, Nanded. ...Respondents. ........ Shri M.M. Patil, Advocate for appellants. Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 and 2.. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 29th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard. 2 This appeal is filed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanded in L.A.R. No. 11/1989. The original appellant Mirja Mahboob baig died during the pendency of this appeal. His legal representatives are now continuing with the appeal. Original appellant was owner of lands Gat No. 209, 235 and 219 of village Markand Tq. & Dist. Nanded. Out of these lands, an area of 2 H 29 R was acquired for irrigation project. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29/10/1987. The S.L.A.O. passed the award on 02/07/1988 awarding Rs.7,600/- per acre as compensation, 4 despite the fact that the original appellant demanded Rs.35,000/- per acre as compensation. Being aggrieved by the award, the original appellant filed L.A.R. No.11/1989 and again demanded Rs. 35,000/- per acre as compensation. 3. The State of Maharashtra opposed the reference. For quite some time, there occurred controversy between the parties as to an area of the land which came to be acquired. It seems, the original appellant was trying to assert that his entire land admeasuring 9 acres and 17 guntha went under water and the award compensated him only for land admeasuring about six acres. But Mr. Patil the learned advocate appearing for the appellant conceded that such a controversy was beyond scope of the land reference. All that is now required to be examined is as to whether the Court below committed an error in awarding enhanced compensation. The learned judge of the trial court, awarded Rs. 12,000/- per acre as compensation. 4. In order to determine the approximate market value of the land on the date of notification under section 4, one would examine the evidence that has come on record. The original appellant recorded his deposition and claimed that the market value of his land on the date of notification was Rs.35,000/- per acre. In order to substantiate this claim, he placed on record various sale instances of lands of his own village and lands of adjoining villages. The learned judge of the lower court discarded the entire documentary evidence produced on record in the form of certified copies of sale instances saying that the certified copies of sale instances were not admissible in evidence. This finding of the learned judge of the lower court was contrary to the provisions of 5 S. 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 51-A reads as under. “In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1968, including a copy given under section 57 of the Act, may be accepted as a evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.” 5. Section 51-A thus makes it clear that even a certified copy of sale instance is acceptable as evidence of the transaction recorded in the document. I am therefore, inclined to use the sale instance for determining this market value of the land in question. On record, there are more than four sale instances out of which, in my view only two are relevant for the purpose of my discussion. One is of May, 1991 in respect of sale of 1 acre land of village Markand sold for Rs.25,000/-. The other sale instance is of 35 guntha land of village Markand, sold for Rs.17,000/- on 11/04/1988. The other two sale instances of village Vishnupuri are required to be discarded because it seems, the market value of lands at village Vishnupuri at the relevant time was very high compared to the market value of lands at village Markand. This was probably because and one of the sale instances indicates, at village Vishnupuri, the Goverment established a full fledged Engineering College. So, the sale instances of village Vishnupuri are not comparable sale instances. The sale instance of 1991 of village Markand and the sale instance of 35 gunthas land of village Markand dated 11/04/1988 are the only two sale instances that can be said to be comparable sale instances. Admittedly, both these sale instances are in respect of comparatively small pieces of lands. In 1988, about 1 acre land of village Markand was sold for Rs.19,500/- per acre whereas after about 3 years, similar land of 6 village Markand was sold for Rs.25,000/-. This indicates that there was a escalation in land prices from 1988 till 1991. Looking to the trend of escalation, the market value of the land in question which was acquired in 1987, in my view could be Rs.19,000/- per acre. In my view, original appellant was entitled to the compensation @ Rs.19,000/- per acre. The appeal therefore, deserves to be allowed partly. ORDER a) The appeal is partly allowed. b) State of Maharashtra shall pay Rs.19,000/- per acre (Rs.47,500/- Per Hector) to the appellants. c) In addition to this, original appellant is entitled to the statutory additions to the compensation such as consortium, additional compensation, interest etc. d) The Registry shall prepare an award accordingly. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] tsk/fa32.94/ok