1 fa327-99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.327 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s. Tanaji Parshuram Raool (Since deceased through his LR's) Satyavati Tanaji Raool & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for appellant – State. None for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 15, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Submission of the learned AGP appearing for the appellant were heard yesterday. As none appeared for the respondents, Appeal was kept today for dictation of the Judgment. None appears for the respondents when the Appeal is called out today. 2. The appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 16th August, 1995 passed by the learned Reference Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to the “said Act”). The acquired land is 2 fa327-99 situated at village Nemale, Taluka Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 7th December, 1990. Award under Section 11 was made on 15th October, 1991. Market value was offered for different categories of the lands at different rates. The respondents did not accept the said Award and at their instance a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made. The respondents claimed market value at the rate of Rs.1500/- per Are. By the impugned Award, the learned Trial Judge has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.800/- per Are. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondents have not adduced evidence of any comparable sale instances and have not discharged the burden on them to prove that the amount offered by an Award under Section 11 was inadequate. He submitted that only on the basis of conjunctions and surmises, the Reference Court has granted enhancement in market value. He submitted that their being no legal evidence on record, enhancement in market value could not have been granted. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Award will have to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Perusal of 3 fa327-99 the record of the case shows that the respondents claimants examined only one witness. The respondent No.1 stepped into the witness box. In the examination-in-chief, he merely stated that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.1500/- per Are in the year 1991. He stated that the respondents were taking crop of paddy and ground-nut in the acquired land. He stated that the land was at a distance of ½ kilometers from Savantwadi and was close to Railway track. Thus, in the deposition, the said witness has not relied upon any comparable sale instance or any valuation report. Apart from the said oral evidence, at Exhibits 45(a), 45(b) and 45 (c), 7 x12 extracts of the acquired land have been produced on record. On the basis of the application made by the respondents at Exhibit 49, a witness summons was issued for production of two documents. The first document is at Exhibit 52 which is the Government Circular issued for the determination of market value of the properties for the purpose of stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The second document which was got produced by the witness summons is at Exhibit 53 which is a copy of index of a sale deed of lands in village Nemale executed in the year 1989. 6. Perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that the learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instances and Awards which 4 fa327-99 have been referred to in the Award under Section 11 of the said Act. If the respondents were relying upon the instances and Awards which are referred to in the Award under Section 11 of the said Act, it was their duty to produce the said sale instances and Awards to prove the same. It was their responsibility to lead evidence to prove that the lands subject matter of the said instances and Awards were similar to acquired land. However, the respondents have neither produced the said documents nor any evidence of comparability has been adduced by them. The Respondents being the claimants in a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act, they were in a position of plaintiff. They have failed to lead any evidence to discharge the burden of proving that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. 7. It will be necessary to note here that in paragraph No.12 of the Judgment, the learned Judge has observed that the District Sindhudurg is now developing as far as tourism is concerned and the district is beautiful. It is also observed that the project of Konkan Railway was likely to be completed within few days. The learned Judge observed that the lands in whole Konkan area are very valuable lands. These reasons are not sufficient to enhance the market value in absence of 5 fa327-99 cogent evidence. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land will have to be raised by Rs.800/- per square. In fact, this is a case where there was no legal evidence adduced by the respondents and, therefore, the Reference ought to have dismissed. 8. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. Appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 16th August, 1995 is quashed and set aside and the Land Acquisition Reference No.32 of 1992 stands dismissed. iii. The appellant will be entitled to costs of the Reference and this Appeal from the respondents. JUDGE