1 F.A.No.537/1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.537 OF 1994 Maroti s/o Dhondiba Thombre, Age 50 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Bhosi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani .. APPELLANT (Orig.Petitioner) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, P.T. & M.I.W., Parbhani ..RESPONDENTS (Orig.Respondents) Mr S.K.Adkine, Advocate for appellant Mr P.P.More, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.4.1993, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in L.A.R.No. 275/1991, which was partly allowed. The land in dispute situates at Survey No.10/5, admeasuring 1 hectare 50-R, which was acquired by Special Land Acquisition Officer by fixing the amount of compensation at Rs.1,200/- per acre. A reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for enhancement of the compensation amount before the Civil Court, Parbhani. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation 2 F.A.No.537/1994 from Rs.1,200/- per acre to Rs.3,000/- per acre for the acquired land and also granted the other consequential benefits to which the appellant was entitled to. Being aggrieved with the order of fixing the rate of compensation by the Reference Court, the appellant preferred this appeal. The appellant in the present appeal claimed that the amount of compensation given is inadequate and it should have been fixed at Rs.7,000/- per acre. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the land acquired is a black soil used for cultivation of the cotton, wheat, jawar. It was an irrigated land by river water. The main contention of the submissions of learned Counsel was that the Reference Court, at the time of enhancing the rate of compensation did not consider the sale instances, which were produced by the appellant. He submitted that the sale instance at Exh.17 dated 25.4.1980 was not properly appreciated by the Reference Court. In the said sale deed, the transaction was for Rs.6,000/- per acre. The said land from village Bhosi was acquired for construction of percolation tank. He further pointed out that the other sale instances, which are marked as Exh.18 and Exh.19, where the transaction was for Rs.24,000/- per acre, were not considered by the Reference Court. He argued that Reference Court should have considered the decision given by the other Reference Court in L.A.R.No.79 of 1984, where the amount of the compensation was enhanced upto Rs.6,000/- per acre and the land under the said L.A.R. was acquired from the same village for the same 3 F.A.No.537/1994 project. He placed reliance on the decision given in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988, where the land is from the same village Bhosi. and the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.24,000/- per acre. He submitted that the land in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988 and the disputed land in this appeal were acquired for the same purpose and, therefore, they form a consolidated one single unit. So, the uniform rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre is to be awarded. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5900. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, per contra, argued that the claim made by the appellant is exorbitant and arbitrary. He pointed out that the sale instances at Exh.17, 18 and 19 are post dated and, therefore, the consideration amount which was drawn by those lands are not comparable. He further submitted that Reference Court while deciding the issue of enhancement has partly allowed the claim of the appellant by increasing the rate from Rs.1,200/- per acre to Rs. 3,000/- per acre and the said increase is adequate in view of the market value, location, and the nature of the land situated in the village Bhosi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani. He submitted that the amount of the award admittedly increased in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988 and it was granted as Rs.24,000/- per acre. However, the facts in the said case are distinguishable on the ground that notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the said land was dated 27.6.1985 i.e. four years later to the notification issued in 1980, in respect of the 4 F.A.No.537/1994 land of the present appellant. 4. Following point arises for determination : (i) Whether amount of the compensation can be enhanced ? Ans : Yes. (ii) Whether appellant is entitled to the extent of amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.24,000/- or Rs.7,000/- per acre ? Ans : No. It is to be noted that in the Reference or in the appeal, the appellant has contended that the amount of compensation is to be enhanced at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per acre. Appellant has offered him as a witness and in his evidence, he has confined his claim for Rs. 7,000/- per acre. His claim for amount of Rs.24,000/- per acre is based on the decision in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988. Learned Counsel has produced the plan of the land, which is acquired for the project of the percolation tank in village Bhosi. The land under acquisition in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988 is Survey Nos.166/1 and 167/1. From the map, it is seen that the land is across the river but it is from the same village. However, the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the said land was issued in 1985, i.e. on 27.6.1985, as pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader and that is only 5 F.A.No.537/1994 four years after the impugned notification, which was issued on 25.4.1980 in respect of the land of the present appellant. The lands acquired in the case of Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and ors., were acquired by notifications dated 1.6.1977, 22.7.1977, 28.3.1978 and 5.5.1978. The notifications though several, appear to be issued within a period of one year. In the present matter the award was passed in July 1981 and thus, as there is a gap of four years in issuing the notification, the land cannot be valued at the uniform rate and, therefore, the present case can be taken out from the ratio in Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others (supra). Therefore, considering the time factor in the notification, the enhanced rate given in L.A.R.No. 167 of 1988 cannot be considered. For comparison, the land and the amount awarded to the land i.e. Survey No.161/4 from village Bhosi in L.A.R.No.79 of 1984 is before this Court. Besides, the Reference Court while considering the claim of enhancement of the appellant, enhanced the rate of land at Rs.5,000/- per acre. The increase in the rate is based on the sale instance, which is marked as Exh.21 in the said L.A.R.No.267/1991. in the present appeal, the appellant has tendered the same sale deed dated 25.4.1980. Thus, claim at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per acre cannot be accepted. However, considering the sale instance at Exh.17 dated 25.4.1980, where three acres of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.17,000/-, i.e. Rs.5,600/- per acre approximately, I am inclined to fix the amount of the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre, on the ground of parity, which is fixed in L.A.R.No.79 of 1984 at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre, as the 6 F.A.No.537/1994 notification is of the same date and the land in L.A.R.No.79 of 1984 is just across the river and from the same village and acquired for the same project. 5. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court is set aside and the rate of the compensation is increased from Rs. 3,000/- per acre to Rs.6,000/- per acre and the order of the consequential benefits is maintained. Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (vvr/537.94fa)