1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.320 OF 1993. Bhagwanrao Ramrao Maske, Aged 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Borja, Taluka Kalamnuri, Dist. Parbhani. ... Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purna Project, Kalamnuri (M.K.V.), Parbhani ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.V.Warad, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for the Respondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 04.11.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hingoli, in Land Reference Case No. 2 181/1991. By the impugned judgment, the reference was partly allowed and the compensation amount was increased to the tune of Rs.48,362/- (Rupees forty eight thousand three hundred sixty two only). The appellant is aggrieved due to less quantum of compensation awarded to him. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant owned agricultural lands bearing S.No.51/4, S.No.51/5, S.No.30/1 and S.No.361/1 situated at village Borja under Kalamnuri Tahsil. The lands were acquired for the purpose of Upper Penganga Project. The LAO awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) and Rs.2,400/- (Rupees two thousand four hundred) per acre. The appellant filed protest petition. The Land Reference case was instituted on the basis of the protest petition. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.) considered the questions raised in the Reference Application. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to recover compensation at rate of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) per acre having regard to the potential utility of the land, 3 reasonable market value which the land could have fetched and other attending factors. 3. The appellant impugns the judgment of the Reference Court on various grounds. According to him, the market value of the lands in question was not less than Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) per acre. He contended that Reference Court committed serous error while reaching the conclusion that the market value of the lands in question was Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) per acre. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 5. At the threshold, let it be noted that the notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6.3.1974 and was published in the Government Gazette dated 4.4.1974. The only question raised in the lower appellate Court as well as in this Court is regarding adequacy of compensation amount awarded to the appellant. The learned counsel would submit that in similar 4 appeals (F.A.No.109/1994, F.A.No.72/1994, F.A.No. 73/1994 etc.), A Single Bench of this Court decided the group together on 16.1.2009. He has placed on record a copy of judgment rendered by this Court in other allied matters. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that the market value of the acquired lands in the group as such could be safely determined at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) per acre. The learned Single Judge further held that without laying much emphasis on the pattern of crops and the payment of land revenue, the lands in the group could be held as having potential enough for development and that market value thereof was of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) per acre. Mr.Warad, submits that he does not want to claim anything more than what has been already determined in the group matters. Thus, the claim is restricted for compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) per acre. Mr.Warad, makes a statement that the compensation is already paid to the other claims of the group at the rate of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) per acre. There is no record to show that the 5 said judgment of this Court has been impugned by the Respondent (State). 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court noticed that report of an expert by name Mr.Suhas was placed on record in the group matters. The learned Single Judge further noticed that the documentary evidence revealed existence of trees in the lands in question. 7. What appears from the record is that the learned Civil Judge did not elaborately deal with the question of reasonable market value which the lands in question could have fetched. The sale instances have been considered in the group matters. The record reveals that one Dadarao had purchased agricultural land owned by one Soni at the rate of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) per acre in the year 1981. There are other sale instances too. The lands of the appellant comprise of four parcels. The case of the appellant is duly covered by the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the group matters of which F.A.No.109/1994 is the leading 6 case. For the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the common judgment of the group in F.A.No.109/1994 and others, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) per acre is the proper market value of the lands in question. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree requires suitable modification. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant will be entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) per acre along with other incidental benefits. He will be entitled to receive difference of solatium on enhanced compensation amount. The remaining part of the impugned judgment is maintained. The difference of compensation may be worked out and be paid to the appellant within a period of two (2) months. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/fa32093 Authenticated Copy (Pvt.Secy. to Hon'ble Judge)