( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 520 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Baburao Kadaji Patil, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Baswant s/o Kishanrao Patil, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus ( 2 ) Tatyarao s/o Ratnoba Saudagar, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus 1. Gundusing s/o Bhimsing Chavan, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agri., 2. Pratapsing s/o Gundusing Chavan, Age: 37 years,Occ: Service & Agri., Both R/o. Jawalga, now residing at Ausa, Taluka Ausa. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimants) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus 1. Shankar s/o Gopalrao Gajbhar, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., 2. Chagorao s/o Govindrao Gajbhar, Age: 60 yrs, Occ: Agri., ( 3 ) Both R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimants) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 514 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus 1. Panditrao s/o Kishonrao Patil, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agri., 2. Wamarrao s/o Kishanrao Patil, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agri., Both R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimants) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Sow. Kamalbai w/o Bhagawanrao Jadhav, Age: 22 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) WITH ( 4 ) FIRST APPEAL NO. 516 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Digamber s/o Shankar Bokade, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) FIRST APPEAL NO. 521 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Yeshwantrao s/o Ramchandrrao Patil, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shiroli, Tq. Nilanga. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) FIRST APPEAL NO. 522 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus 1. Dadarao s/o Pandurang Jadhav, Age: 52 years, 2. Ramrao s/o Gnapati Jadhav, Age: 40 yrs, 3. Shrimant s/o Ganpati Jadhav, Age: 35 years, ( 5 ) 4. Bhagwat s/o Ganpati Jadhav, Age: 32 years, 5. Balaji s/o Ganpati Jadhav, Age: 35 years, All agriculturists, and R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondents (Ori. Claimants) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 523 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Gurlingappa Apparao Fulari, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 524 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus 1. Gopal s/o Pandurangrao Biradar, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agri., 2. Sagar s/o Pandurangrao Biradar, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agri., Both R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimants) ( 6 ) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 525 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus 1. Baburao s/o Umrao Jadhav, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agri., 2. Jeevan s/o Umrao Jadhav, Age: 25 yrs, Occ: Agri., Both R/o. Jawalga, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimants) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 538 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus 1. Madhav s/o Deorao Sawant Age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., died L.Rs. 1/A) Limbabai w/o Madhav Sawant, age: 50 yrs, 1/B) Deelip Madhav Sawant, age: 22 yrs, 2. Haribhau s/o Yadav Sawant, Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Agri., 3. Shivaji s/o Ganpati Sawant, age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agri., ( 7 ) All r/o Hisamnagar (Mategadi), Tq. Udgir. .. Respondents (Ori. Claimants) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 539 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Dadarao r/o Yenkatrao Sawant, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Hibamanagar (Mategadi), Tq. Latur. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 540 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. .. Appellant Versus Pundlik s/o Bhimrao Sawant, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Hisamnagar, Tq. Udgir. .. Respondent (Ori. Claimant) ... Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for the appellants. None present for the respondents. ... ( 8 ) CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 26.03.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : These are the First Appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved by the common judgment and awards passed in L.A.R. No. 131/1988 and other related Land Acquisition References decided by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Latur on 25-11-1998. Admitted facts giving rise to these appeals may be stated as below. 2. The respondents, in all these matters, are various land holders, whose lands were situated at village Javalgaon and which were acquired by the Government for the construction of K.T. Wair Girakchal. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25-08-1983. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was subsequently issued. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation @Rs.7000/- per acre. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents have filed Land References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The evidence is led ( 9 ) by the claimants and main evidence is recorded in L.A.R. No. 131/1988, as against which, the First Appeal NO. 520/1996 is filed. The Reference Court awarded the compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre. These appeals are filed by the State, being aggrieved by the enhanced rate of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. 3. Heard learned A.G.P., who has taken me to the entire record. None present for the respondents when called out. The trial Court mainly relied on the deposition of witness Yashwantrao, examined in L.A.R. No. 131/1988. He stated that on 12-01-1980, he sold 1 Acre 30 Gunthas land out of Survey No.265/A from village Lohara for Rs. 40,000/- and the certified copy of the sale deed is produced at Exhibit-46. He further explained that the land sold by him was dry land. The transaction was bonafide. The Reference Court accepted the sale instance proved by witness Yashwantrao. He also stated that village Jawalga is one mile from his land situated at village Lohara and therefore, the trial Court has observed that the sale instance to be considered as valid one. Learned A.G.P. argued that only one instance was relied upon and this error is committed. In the same L.A.R., the ( 10 ) certified copies of other sale deeds are produced. Thus, there is certified copy of the sale deed dated 09-04-1981. It is a sale deed executed of 1 acre 1 guntha land, situated at village Devani for Rs.30,000/-. The certified copy of another sale deed dated 04-05-1983 is produced. It is in respect of 2 acres 20 gunthas. The land is situated at village Dhanegaon Taluka Udggir. The said land was sold for Rs.40,000/-. The land appears in village Dhanegaon and there is no evidence to show what is the distance between village Javalgaa and this village. Another certified copy of the sale deed dated 06-04-1981 is in respect of the land situated at village Gurthal Taluka Udgir. The land was sold for Rs.49,000/-. 2 acres 38 gunthas land was sold. But it is clear that there was a well, two mango trees situated in the land. There is another certified copy of the sale deed dated 07-01-1983 of the land situated at Shelgaon, Taluka Udgir, which was 2 ares 29 gunthas, sold for Rs.46,000/-. Under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, certified copies of the documents registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy given under Section 57 of the said Act, may be accepted as a evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. So, I find as many as five sale instances from the same Udgir Taluka, one ( 11 ) of which is proved by P.W. 2 Yashwantrao, examined as a witness. 4. In the circumstances, the conclusion of the Reference Court that the market price on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the said Act which is 25-08-1983, is Rs. 20,000/- per acre, can be said to be reasonable and correct conclusion. The trial Court further observed in Para-8 that the sale instance proved by P.W.1 Yashwantrao was of a sale of dry land @ Rs.22,800/- per acre in the year 1980 and therefore, considering the fluctuations, Rs.20,000/- per acre would be considered as proper. He also referred to V.F.7/12 extracts which are produced on record of the suit land, so also, land sold by Yashwantrao. Those V.F.7/12 extracts are at Exhs.13 to 24 in L.A.R. No.131/1989 ( F.A. No.520/1996). 5. The Reference Court also referred to the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No. 316/1989 and other matters decided by 2nd Additional District Judge, Latur on 25-01-1991. Therein, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on the same date i.e. 25-08-1983. The land from village Javalga was acquired for ( 12 ) the same project. Therein, the Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. So, considering the oral evidence and the documentary evidence referred to above, in my opinion, these appeals have no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed, as market price determined by the Reference Court on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was proper. In the result, these appeals are dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/MAR10/fa520.96