1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.996 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Beed Minor Irrigation Division, Beed The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd., Aurangabad. Appellant V/s 1. Meenabai Bhivsen Sapkal Aged : 35 years, Occ : Agri. R/o Shirapur Gat, Tahsil Shirur (K), Dist.Beed. 2. Pandurang S/o Mulidhar Gat Aged : 45 years, Occ : and R/o As above. 3. The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Beed. Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Anand Chaware, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 2. Smt.S.D. Shelke, the AGP for Respondent No.3/State. ----------------------------------------------------------- (CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) DATE : 6th October, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2006 passed by the learned IIIrd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference No.381/2005. The land under acquisition is owned and possessed by the respondents which admeasures total 38 2 R. It was acquired for construction of the canal of Uthala Large Medium Irrigation Project at village Shirapur Gat, Tq. Shirur (Kasar), Dist. Beed, by notification dated 28.01.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded total compensation of Rs.25,000/- for acquisition of the said land. The claimants, being dissatisfied by the said award, preferred the Land Acquisition Reference No.381/2005. The learned Judge of the Reference Court relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit-18, belonging to one Ananda, which was 30 R land sold for Rs.40,000/-, to one Suresh by registered sale deed dated 31.08.1999. The rate of same comes to Rs. 1,333/- per R. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs.13,805/- (inclusive of Rs.8,930/- towards enhanced compensation, Rs.1,696/- towards 12% components, Rs.2,679/- towards 30% solatium). 2. The notice on condonation of delay application was issued, in response to which, Shri.D. R. Jayabhar, the learned Counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 and 2- claimants. The delay was condoned and by consent of parties, it was agreed that the matter shall be disposed of at the stage of admission. The matter is thus, listed today. Admit. 3. Heard the matter finally at the consent of the 3 parties. Shri. Anand Chaware, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, challenged the findings recorded in paragraph no.18 of the Judgment of the Reference Court whereby, the compensation was determined on the basis of the sale deed at Exhibit-18. The para 18 of the judgment of the Reference Court, which is relevant, is reproduced below:- “18. Now I would like to scan the evidence on the point of second sale instance. The copy of the sale deed at Exh. 18 suggest that one Ananda sold 30 R Jirayat land for Rs.40,000/- to one Suresh by the registered sale deed on 31.08.1999 i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,333/- per R. Considering the date of this sale deed, date of notification under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act in this acquisition proceeding and their locations I feel that, this sale instance may be accepted as a comparable sale to fix the market value of the acquired lands subject to some deductions on the point of dissimilarities between these lands. The acquired lands under these references are small pieces of land and the area of the land covered under this sale deed is 30 R and therefore, 32% deductions in the market value of the land covered under the sale instance will be permissible and reasonable to fix the market value of the acquired lands on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. Thus, I fix the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.900/- per R on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act.” 4. Shri. Chaware, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the land under Exhibit-18 is not at all comparable to the land under acquisition. He has 4 further alleged that the aspect regarding the location and nearness of the land, has not been considered by the Reference Court. He further alleged, that the sale instance which is relied upon, has no bearing on the price of the land nor any documentary or otherwise reliable and cogent evidence available on record, regarding the fertileness, quality, nature, past production, potential of their lands. As against this, Shri.D. R. Jayabhar, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that all these aspects are taken into consideration by the Reference Court and permissible deductions are granted from the market value of the land under Exhibit-18. 5. After going through the findings recorded by the Reference Court which are reproduced above, it is apparent that the Trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant could not bring to the notice of this Court as to how and in what manner, the evidence regarding the similarity of the land under acquisition and one covered by the sale instance, exists. In absence of there being any evidence to that effect and specific ground, the Trial Court has allowed 32% deductions in the market value of the lands covered under the sale instance, which is relied upon. In view of the above, I do not find any affirmity in the 5 findings recorded by the Trial Court. 5. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the First Appeal, and therefore, same is dismissed without any order as to costs. (R.K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE GAS/fa996.09