{1} fast1831409.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.18314 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed. Appellant Versus 1 Mahatrdeo Baburao Palve, age: major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Karkhel (B), Tq.Ashti, District Beed. 2 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad, Beed. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.18075 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed. Appellant Versus 1 Bhau Anna Kawhale 2 Lahanu Anna Kawhale 3 Laximan Shridhar Kawhale 4 Bharat Shridhar Kawhale Respondent Nos.3 & 4 under guardianship of Sunderbai {2} fast1831409.odt Shridhar Kawhale. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 age: major and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are minor, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Karkhel (B), Tq. Ashti, District Beed. 5 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad Division, Beed. Tq. & Dist. Beed. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.18312 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed. Appellant Versus 1 Shantilal Parmeshor Pawar 2 Kantilal Namdeo Pawar 3 Narayan Rambhau Pawar Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 age: major, Occ: Agril., R/o Karkhel (B), Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed. 2 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad Division, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Respondents {3} fast1831409.odt Mr.S.N.Kendre, A.G.P. for applicant-State. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 06 th July, 2011 PER COURT: 1 These are appeals presented by the State of Maharashtra raising exception to the judgment and award dated 08.12.2005, passed by IV Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. Nos.170/2004, 171/2004 and 172/2004. 2 The agricultural lands belonging to the claimants, comprising small pieces of land, came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of village tank at village Karkhel Budruk, Taluka Ashti, District Beed. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.04.1998. The possession of the lands was already taken over by private negotiations on 25.02.1995. After completing the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 04.12.2000 and offered compensation to the claimants in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs.400/- per are. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate applications seeking reference of the matters to the Civil Court for determination of proper market value of the acquired {4} fast1831409.odt land. 3 The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.1000/- per are. In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants placed reliance on oral as well as documentary evidence in the form of comparable sale instances. The sale deed at Exhibit-30 is from village Karkhel and is in respect of 23 ½ ares land out of S.No.91, which has been alienated for consideration of Rs.22,000/- on 01.11.1996. The value of the land purchased by the purchaser thus comes to Rs. 936/- per are. Another sale instance placed on record is at Exhibit-20, which is dated 22.02.1994. One Sindhubai (C.W. No.2) purchased an area to the extent of 28 ares out of S.No.65/E/5 of village Karkhel from Desu Pawar for consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The rate of the land under purchase comes to Rs.1785/- per are. The claimants’ witness stepped into witness box and has deposed about the quality and fertility of the acquired land, which is comparable with the land covered by sale instance, owned by her. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court, by application of certain guesswork, arrived at the conclusion that the market price of the acquired land shall be Rs. 800/- per are and directed enhancement of amount of compensation accordingly. 4 I have perused the judgment and award passed by the {5} fast1831409.odt Reference Court and heard arguments advanced by learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant-State. Learned A.G.P. also made available copies of relevant record produced before the trial Court in the form of sale instances and oral evidence for perusal. 5 Considering the evidence placed on record and on going through the reasons recorded by the Reference Court, I am convinced that the view taken by the Reference Court is quite reasonable and the amount of enhancement, directed to be paid in respect of acquired agricultural land, is quite meager. It is also to be taken note of that very small pieces of agricultural lands belonging to the claimants have been acquired, thus, entitling them to receive a paltry sum. 6 For the reasons recorded above, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in the appeals. Appeals are devoid of substance. 7 Appeals, therefore, stand dismissed. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/fast1831409