1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR F.A.NO.950 OF 2009 Sk. Kasam Sk.Hasan and ors. ..vs.. Land Acquisition Officer and anr. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 22nd September, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.M.V.Bute, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.M.Agnihotri, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the award passed by the reference court, whereby the reference court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The owner feels aggrieved and prefers this appeal. 3. The land was sought to be acquired by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (M.I.D.C.), for establishing the industrial units. A notification for acquisition of the land was issued in 2 the year 1989. Since the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.18000/- per hectare, a reference was sought to the Civil Court. The Civil Court has awarded Rs.50,000/- per hectare still the owner feels aggrieved. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants/owners submits that the compensation has not been awarded properly by the reference court. He submits that the M.I.D.C. itself had recommended not to acquire certain pieces of land including this piece of land because of the fact that it was a very high quality land and very costly. He submits that considering this, the compensation should have been awarded. 5. It appears from the judgment of the learned judge of the lower court that he had considered the sale instance of the year 1995 while determining the compensation That sale is much after the Notification. This sale instance is in respect of the land which adjoins the land in question and is indisputably of the same quality. The said sale instance (Exh.49) clearly goes to show that it was sold for Rs.40,000/- per hectare. This sale instance, therefore, is best piece of the evidence that was available for learned judge to decide the compensation. He has rightly relied upon the sale 3 instance. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that no proper compensation is awarded in respect of the Well. He submits that compensation of Rs.78,000/- has to be awarded for the Well. The learned judge of the reference court has observed in judgment that although such an amount is claimed by the owner, no evidence to show the value of the Well has been placed on record. Considering this aspect I do not find that the learned Judge of the lower court has committed any error. There is no reason to admit the appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute