1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 2456/2004 in F.A. St. No. 4772/2004, First Appeal No. 255/2007 & First Appeal No. 258/2007 Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. V. A. Naik, J. DATED : April 11, 2007. Civil application no. 2456/2004 is filed by the appellant-State seeking condonation of delay of 874 days in filing the first appeal. For the reasons stated in the civil application, delay in filing the first appeal is condoned. Civil application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. First appeal is taken up for admission along with other two connected first appeals. Since common facts are involved in these three first appeals, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Shri Agrawal and Shri Sonare, the Assistant Government Pleaders for the appellants, and Mrs. Patil for the respondent in First Appeal No. 258/2007. The lands belonging to the respondents in 2 these three appeals were acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the construction of Navargaon Tank Project. Section 4 notification was issued on 1/10/1987. The Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12/10/1991. The respondents had claimed compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per hectare. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, granted compensation @ Rs.8,576/- per hectare and Rs. 9,500/- per hectare for the acquired lands. Being dissatisfied by the grant of meager compensation, respondents filed reference applications before the Collector, Yavatmal, who referred the matter to the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal. Three Land Acquisition Cases were decided by the Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Yavatmal, by a common judgment and Award dated 7/7/2001. The reference Court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land and granted @ Rs.37,500/- per hectare. The State is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and Award and has filed these three first appeals. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that without appreciating the material evidence on record in the right perspective, the reference Court enhanced the compensation to a great extent when the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly granted compensation @ Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- per hectare. Mrs. Patil, the learned counsel for the 3 respondent, however, supports the findings recorded by the reference Court. I have perused the record as also the judgment passed by the reference Court. The following points arise for consideration in this first appeal. (1) Whether the reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation payable to the respondents? (2) Whether the judgment and award passed by the reference Court is just and proper? On a perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the reference Court has minutely considered the voluminous oral and documentary evidence on record to hold that the market price of the land in question was Rs. 37,500/- per hectare. The reference Court considered the oral evidence of the claimants which showed that the land was situated only 2 kilometers away from the State Highway. Village Navargaon had population of more than 6000 to 7000 and the village had facilities of electricity supply, water supply, Post Office, Schools, Government Hospitals, Phone and transportation. Though the claimants had sought compensation for trees standing on the acquired land and had claimed enhanced compensation for the well in the lands in question, the reference Court rightly rejected the claim of the respondents in that regard. The 4 reference Court considered the fact that Section 4 notification was issued in these cases on 1/10/1987 and by the Award passed by the reference Court in other land acquisition cases, the reference Court had granted compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The reference Court held that Exh. 56 clearly proves that the price of land at village Navargaon was Rs. 30,000/- per acre on 19/12/1994. The reference Court, therefore, considered the sale transactions effected vide sale deeds at Exhs. 56 and 67, to compute the market value of the land in the instant cases. The reference Court then rightly discarded the two sale transactions effected vide Exhs. 66 and 67 on the ground that the lands sold vide Exhs. 66 and 67 were situated near the village and were required for the expansion of Gaothan. The reference Court rightly denied the compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 55,000/- per hectare by discarding the evidence tendered vide Exhs. 66 and 67. The reference Court further considered 7/12 extracts produced in all the three cases which show that the respondents took the crops like cotton, jowar, tur etc. and were getting net annual income of not less than Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. The reference Court, thus, by applying both the methods i.e. income capitalization method and the method of comparing the sale instances in 5 respect of the comparable lands, held that the market value of the land was not less than Rs. 37,500/- per hectare. The reference Court, therefore, rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 37,500/- per hectare though the claimants had claimed compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per hectare. The approach of the reference Court in appreciating the evidence and computing the market value of the lands is extremely reasonable. No fault could be found with the judgment and Award passed by the reference Court in these three cases. For the aforesaid reasons, I answer both the points in affirmative and dismiss all the three first appeals. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP