1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2011 State of Maharashtra thr Collector Buldhana Vs. Krishnabai Sakharam Joshi Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Smt M. H. Deshmukh AGP for applicant/appellant. CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI J. Dated: 2 nd MAY, 2011. Learned AGP for the appellant-State argued that reference Court erred in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per hectre as against Rs. 39,000/- per hectre awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer. According to her Section 4 Notification was published on 04.12.1997 and the land acquired in question was 1.72 hectre for Minor Irrigation Tank. She, therefore, urged that this Court should interfere with the award made by the reference Court since enhancement made was almost double. 2 I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. It appears that appellant-State did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. The claimant led evidence and filed documentary evidence in the form of Ex. 19, a sale deed for 81 R from Gat No. 244 of the same village KaLambeshwar showing that 81 R of land was sold for Rs. 50,000/- on 21.06.1995. It is clear that Section 4 Notification was issued on 04.12.1997. This sale deed Ex. 19 was not put to challenge by the appellant and the evidence to that effect was not at all shaken in the cross examination. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal by appellant State, the reference Court having regard to the price of Rs. 50,000/- for 81 R (less than one hectre) stated in Ex. 19, rightly awarded the rate, namely Rs. 60,000/- per hectre. As a matter of fact according to me giving rise of 10% every year from 1995 to 1997, the price of the land would be more than Rs. 60,000/- per hectre but then since reference Court has awarded enhanced compensation at Rs. 60,000/- per hectre , the same can be termed as just compensation. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned award. There is no merit in the present First Appeal. It is therefore dismissed. No costs. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6