fast19696.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 19696 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Bhagwan s/o Ramkrishna Gonde & others .. RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 19799 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Wasant Babu Phulari .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 19796 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Rajendra s/o Nilkanth Solanke & others .. RESPONDENTS fast19696.09 2 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 19787 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Ramrao Dnyanoba Yadav .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 19793 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Raghunath Sitaram Pandit & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1 These appeals are presented by the State raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge – 1, Majalgaon in LAR no. 333/2004 and other companion matters on 1-2-2007. fast19696.09 3 2 Lands belonging to the respective claimants comprising of small pieces came to be acquired by the State for Jaikwadi Irrigation Project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24-8-1995 and, after following the procedure prescribed under the Act, award came to be passed on 13-1-1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 275/- per R for the acquired agricultural lands. Claimants being dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate applications seeking reference of the matter to the civil court for determination of market value of the acquired lands. Claimants claim enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per R. Reference court after considering the evidence produced by the claimants determined market value of the lands at Rs. 638/- per R and directed payment of enhanced amount of compensation. 3 In order to substantiate their claim, claimants examined themselves and deposed about the quality and fertility of the acquired lands. Claimants also placed reliance on sale instance at exh. 22 in respect of the adjoining agricultural property. In order to prove the sale instance, claimants fast19696.09 4 examined one Gangadhar who deposed before the court that he purchased land to the extent of 55 R out of gat no. 348 on 3-6-1994 for consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. According to him, the land purchased by him was having facility of irrigation. The witness also stated that the lands under acquisition bearing gat no. 340, 341 and 364 are adjoining to the land purchased by him out of gat no. 348. Sale deed is admittedly pre- notification sale and as such relevant piece of evidence for fixing market value of the acquired property. Reference court, considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Kantaben Manibhai Amin and another vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 103 directed certain deductions on account of minus factors. Land Acquisition Officer while prescribing market value has considered the aspect that the sale deed is one year prior to section 4 notification and as such allowed 10% rise whereas, considering the situation of the land covered by the sale instance, reference court directed deductions to the extent of 10%. Land Acquisition Officer as such arrived at conclusion that fair market price of the acquired land shall be Rs. 638.30/- per R. 4 On perusal of the judgment as well as on consideration of the relevant fast19696.09 5 record made available for perusal by the learned AGP, I am convinced that the view adopted by the reference court is quite reasonable and proper and the reference court has arrived at finding in respect of market value of the acquired property on the basis of the principles laid down by the Apex Court i n the reported judgment (cited supra). I do not find that the reference court has committed any error in directing payment of enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants. Apart from this aspect, considering the meager amount of enhancement directed to be paid by the reference court as well as considering the fact that small pieces of agricultural lands have been acquired for the purpose of irrigation project, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in the appeals. Appeals are devoid of substance hence stand dismissed. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb