1 F.A.st.1958.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1958 OF 2011 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur and others. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS Shrirang Kanheyyalal Joshi and another ...RESPONDENTS. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1800 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1958 OF 2011 ... Shri.K.S.Patil, AGP for Appellants. ... CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This is an appeal presented by the Appellants-State raising exception to the Judgment and Award passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Latur, District Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference bearing No. 560 of 2000, decided on 14.07.2009 2 F.A.st.1958.11 2. Agricultural land belonging to claimants-respondents herein, ad measuring 1H.96 R situated at village Ekambi, Tq. Ausa, District Latur, came to be acquired for construction of percolation tank at village Ekambi. Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12.01.1995 and after following procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 04.11.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation in respect of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.250/- per R i.e. Rs.10,000/- per Acre. 3. The claimants being dissatisfied with Judgment and Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate application seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The claimants claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rupees 50,000/- per Acre. 4. In order to substantiate their contentions, the claimants led oral as well as documentary evidence. The claimants stepped into witness box and deposed in respect of quality and fertility of the lands, and crops which they used to take in the agricultural lands. Besides oral evidence, claimants placed reliance on the documentary evidence in the form of sale 3 F.A.st.1958.11 instances. Exhibit 19 is the sale deed executed by Nabi Allauddin Shaikh and Hasan Nabi Shaikh in favour of Raghunath Bhagwan. The land sold is out of Gut NO. 49 to the extent of 41 R for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. The land is situated at village Mendha, Tq. And District Osmanabad. He has stated that it is seasonally irrigated land. In another sale instance placed on record is in respect of land Survey No.225 to the extent of 20 R land which has been sold for consideration of Rs.20,000/-. The said land is situated at village Ujani, Tq. Ausa, which is adjoining village. Another sale deed at Exh.29, dated 10.06.1994 was executed by one Pandurang Jaju and two others in favour of Dnyanoba Bhagwat Sutar in respect of alienation of survey No.6 situated at village Ujani to the extent of 2 Acres and 2 Gunthas for consideration of Rs. 57,000/-. 5. Besides the sale instances the claimants placed on record the copy of the judgment in LAR No. 17 of 2004, delivered on 12.02.2006 by Civil Judge S.D. Latur, wherein Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per Hectare in respect of acquisition of lands situated at village Ekambi, Tq. Ausa. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the said matter on 19.10.1998 and Award was passed on 31.01.2001. Considering the fact that the acquired land is situated at village Ekambi, and decision in LAR No. 17 of 2004 also 4 F.A.st.1958.11 pertains to acquisition from the same village, the reference Court found that judgment in Land Acquisition Reference decided by Civil Judge S.D.Latur can be proper guide for determination of market value of the acquired land. The Reference Court reached conclusion and prescribed the market value shall be Rs.700/- per R, in respect of acquired land. 5. I have perused the Judgment and Award of the Reference Court and heard argument advanced by Mr. Patil, learned AGP. I have also perused the relevant copies of evidence made available by the learned counsel, while arguing the matter. Considering all these facts and circumstances narrated above, I am convinced that Reference Court has adopted reasonable approach in the matter and the enhancement that has been granted is quite marginal. In this view of the matter, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of substance, stands dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of appeal, application seeking stay to the impugned judgment and award do not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed accordingly. Sd/- [ R.M.BORDE, J. ] MTK 5 F.A.st.1958.11