1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CROSS OBJECTION IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 492 OF 1993 (State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Sureshchandra Shantilal Suchak) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 10, 2009. Heard Shri Kankale, AGP for the appellants & Shri Saoji, Advocate for the respondent. This Court has disposed of First Appeal No. 492 of 1993 along with First Appeal No. 497 of 1993 vide judgment dated 5th & 6th January 2009. The Cross Objection was not brought to the notice of this Court at that time and therefore, could not be decided. The Cross Objection is, therefore, taken up today for hearing. The learned counsel for the Cross Objector points out that the average value of the land as accepted by the Reference Court and this Court is Rs.1,23,000/- per Hectare or Rs.1,18,000/- per Hectare. He states that even after considering the sale instance at Exh. 20 which was after Section 4 Notification and after effecting proportionate deduction, the market price has been worked out at 2 Rs.1,07,200/- per Hectare. He, therefore, contends that Reference Court erred in holding the market price as Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare and it should have been proportionately more. The learned AGP states that this Court has considered the effect that both sale instances i.e. Exhs. 20 and 23 were of lands situated at some distance from the suit lands and therefore has maintained the price as awarded by the Reference Court. With the assistance of both counsel, I have perused the judgment of Reference Court and judgment delivered in First Appeals. It appears that the sale instances are of lands situated at a distance of 0.5 kms. from suit land. In these circumstances, this Court has noticed that rate awarded could not be labelled either as arbitrary or erroneous. The learned counsel has further tried to demonstrate that the Cross Objector has not been given any compensation because of severance and it is pointed out that large chunk of his land has been acquired. It is to be noticed that the enhancement was sought by Cross Objector on the ground that the land had non agricultural potentiality because of its nearness to Digras town. Thus acquisition of part of land for resettlement of project affected persons has 3 added to the potentiality and there is no question of granting any compensation for severance. I, therefore, do not find any case being made out warranting enhancement sought by the Cross Objector. Cross Objection is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE *GS.