1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.610 OF 1993 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.611 OF 1993 Date of decision:3/8/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.NIRGUDE 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/ may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/610­611­93fa 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.610 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector,Beed. ...APPELLANT (Ori.Respondent) VERSUS 1. Maruti Nana Sangle, age 32, 2. Ambadas Tukaram Sangle, age 35, 3. Raghunath Ramrao Sangle, age 55, 4. Baba Ramrao Sangle, age 52, 5. Ashru Pada Bangar, age 55 yrs. ALL agriculturists of village Karewadi, Tq.Ashti, Dist.Beed. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Petitioners) ... Smt.S.D.Shelke, A.G.P., for the appellant. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 though served, absent. ... WITH 3 FIRST APPEAL NO.611 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra ...APPELLANT (Ori.Respondent) Vs 1. Maruti Nana Sangle, age 32, 2. Ambadas s/o Tukaram Sangle, age 35, 3. Raghunath s/o Ramrao Sangale, age 55, 4. Baba s/o Ramrao Sangle, age 52 yrs. ALL Agriculturists of village Karewadi, Tq.Ashti, Dist.Beed. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.petitioners) ... Smt.S.D.Shelke, A.G.P., for the appellant. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 though served, absent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE :3/8/2010 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment mainly because the Land Acquisition References were also disposed of in similar fashion by a common judgment. 2. The learned Additional District Judge passed the impugned judgment and award on 5th April, 1988 in land acquisition 4 references filed by the present respondents, enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the respondents. It is common ground that the lands in question were acquired by the Government for the purpose of percolation tank at village Matawali. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was published on 18th April, 1985. Ultimately, the land acquisition award was passed on 13th April, 1987. The lands under acquisition were Jirayat lands. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of revenue assessment and the evidence he had collected, fixed the market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs.67/- per R. 3. The respondents filed Reference Applications under Section 18 of the of the Act and sought enhancement. They sought Rs.15000/- per acre as compensation. At the Reference stage, in support of their case, the respondents produced evidence in the form of sale instances of adjoining lands. On the other hand, the appellant (original respondent) did not lead any evidence on this point. 4. Having regard to such evidence, the learned Judge of the Reference Court held that they have proved the market rate of the lands in question to be Rs.350/- per R ( Rs.14,000/- per acre). 5. The question that arises for my consideration is: “whether the assessment made by the learned Judge of the Reference Court about the market value of the land is erroneous? The answer is in the negative. The three sale instances produced on record are of the period previous to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 5 So, they are quite relevant for the purpose of calculating the market value of the land in question. Out of the three sale instances, one sale instance, in my view, is most appropriate material. It is in respect of certain land of the same village admeasuring 24 Guntha. That relatively small piece of land was sold for Rs.10,000/-. The market price of that land, thus, came to Rs.416/- per R. The other two sale instances are of more smaller pieces of lands; one had area of 15 R. and other had area of 8 R. Those lands were sold at a much higher price than the land fetched in the first instance. It has come on record that the 24 R. land which was sold for Rs.10,000/- had irrigation facility from a well. Having regard to this advantage, it appears, the learned Judge of the Reference Court reduced the market value of the lands in question quite considerably and fixed it at Rs.350/- per R. In the facts and circumstances of the case and, in absence of any other evidence on record, this conclusion and finding cannot be said to be erroneous. In view of this, the appeals should fail and stand dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE) JUDGE ... agp/610-611-93fa/ok