( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1993 1. Rangrao Kondiba, .. Appellants Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gojegaon, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 2. Uttam s/o. Kondiba Waghmare, Age. 25 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. As above. 3. Ratnakar Baburao Waghmare, Age. 10 years, Occ. 4. Prabhakar s/o. Baburao Waghmare, Age. 7 years, 3 & 4 u/g of mother Laxmibai w/o. Baburao Waghmare, Occ. Household, R/o. As above. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through – Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,.. Respondents Nanded. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 1993 Deorao s/o. Umaji Waghmare .. Appellant Age. 32 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gojegaon, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. ( 2 ) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through – Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,.. Respondents Nanded. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 128 OF 1993 Rohidas s/o. Narayan Waghmare .. Appellant Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gojegaon, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through – Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,.. Respondents Nanded. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 129 OF 1993 Sanjay s/o. Nagorao Shinde .. Appellant Age. 21 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gojegaon, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. Versus ( 3 ) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through – Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,.. Respondents Nanded. Shri G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the appellants/ claimants. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. RESERVED ON : 16.06.2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 22.06.2009 J U D G M E N T :- 1. This is a group of appeals in which original claimants being dissatisfied with the common judgment and awards dated 23rd March, 1990, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 52 of 1986 to 55 of 1986 have filed these appeals. 2. Now, it is admitted position that in all these appeals the lands belonging to the appellants situated at village Gojegaon, Tal. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded, were acquired for construction of “Kayadu Branch Canal”. The ( 4 ) notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 09.09.1982 and awards by Special Land Acquisition Officer came to be passed on 27.01.1984. The appellants made demand of market rate of Rs.23000/- per hectare, after service of notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award Rs.6000/- per Hectare and therefore the present appellants filed separate land acquisition references which came to be numbered as L.A.R. Nos. 52 of 1986 to 55 of 1986. The Reference Court after considering the evidence which included copies of awards produced at Exh.36 & 36, sale- deed at Exh. 34 and oral evidence of one Maruti Sakharam at Exh.33, was pleased to award market rate of Rs. 15000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the same, these appeals are filed. 3. Heard Adv. Shri G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the appellants and A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele, for respondents – State of Maharashtra. 4. The learned advocate relied upon common ( 5 ) judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.123 of 1993 and other related matters decided on 03.07.2008. Said judgment is taken on record in First Appeal No.126 of 1993 and marked “X”. It is argued by Adv. Shri Chincholkar that in the said group of appeals decided by a common judgment, lands at Gojegaon, Tal. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded, were involved. The date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was 9th September, 1982, which is the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present four appeals before this Court. He also argued that the lands in the judgment referred to were acquired for the construction of Kayadu Branch Canal, as can be seen from para 3 of the judgment. In those matters, the claimants have claimed market rate at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre (sic). However, the Reference Court was pleased to award Rs. 15000/- per Hectare, as can be seen from paragraph 16 (i). So, it is argued that the lands in the matters involved in the judgment under Reference are comparable with lands involved in group of present appeals, as same rate of Rs.15000/- per hectare was awarded by Reference Court in these appeals. The lands ( 6 ) are situated at same village, acquired for same purpose and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued on same day and therefore relying on the reasons given in judgment of First Appeal No. 123 of 1993 and related matters, this Court should award the market rate of Rs.25,000/- per hectare. 5. After going through the judgment in First Appeal No. 123 of 1993 (marked “X”), it appears that the lands involved in the present group of four appeals and the lands under consideration of the Court in First Appeal No.123 of 1993 were comparable with each other. The Reference Court has awarded rate of Rs.15000/- per Hectare in all these matters. They are situated at same village. The date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was also same. They are acquired for same project, at same time. So, we can certainly rely on the judgment. The Court has discussed the evidence and the sale instances so also the judgment of the Reference Court and ultimately has come to the conclusion that market rate was Rs.25000/- per hectare. ( 7 ) 6. So far as relevancy and admissibility of previous judgments and awards passed in respect of comparable instances are concerned, the law appears to be now well settled and the same can be taken into consideration. In the case of Daisy and another V/s. The State of Kerala, AIR 1971 S.C. 2272, it is observed that in fixing compensation for plots awarded, the market price fixed in respect of a contiguous plot recently acquired can be taken into consideration and compensation fixed after comparing relative situation and importance of the plots. 7. In the case of Sharadchandra Chimanlal and ors. V/s. State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 1987 GUJARAT 55, it is observed in para 13 that in fixing compensation for land acquired, the market price fixed in respect of contiguous land which is also acquired can be taken into consideration and compensation is to be fixed in the light thereof after comparing the relative situation and importance of the two plots. Reliance was placed on the case of Daisy (Supra). ( 8 ) 8. In K. Periasami V/s. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), (1994) 4 S.C.C.180, in para 2, the Supreme Court took into consideration the rate awarded by the High Court in respect of other lands and after comparing the lands involved, observed that the lands involved in the appeals before the Supreme Court were possessed of better advantageous position than the lands covered in the other appeals and in the situation the appellant is entitled to parity of the market value for the acquired lands. 9. In the case of Bhim Singh V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 4382 the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “Even otherwise when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceeding this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best mothod would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments.” 10. So, after considering the position of law and ( 9 ) the fact that the lands involved in the present group of four appeals are comparable with the lands involved in First Appeal No.123 of 1993 and other matters decided by a common judgment dated 03.07.2008 (marked “X”), in my opinion the present appeals deserve to be allowed. The appellants would be entitled to market value of Rs. 25000/- per Hectare instead of Rs. 15000/- per Hectare and to claim other statutory benefits such as 30% amount as solatium, as well as 12% component under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the additional amounts that may be payable. All these appeals are accordingly allowed and disposed of. sd/- [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/fa126.93 “AUTHENTICATED COPY” (S.N. KULKARNI) P.A. TO HON’BLE JUDGE