ash 1 fa-1028.97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1028 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sindhudurg. .. Appellant Vs Smt. Mandakini Ramchandra Loke .. Respondent ­­ Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. Shri A.S. Khandeparkar for the Respondent. ­­ CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 20TH JULY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . By this appeal, the Appellant – State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 6th March, 1996 passed by the Reference Court in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquisition relates to the land bearing Survey No.60, Hissa No.28 admeasuring 35 R situated at village Tembdhurinagar Pinguli, Taluka – Kudal, District –Sindhudurg. 2. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 20th June, 1991 by which the said land was notified for the ash 2 fa-1028.97 acquisition for the purposes of Konkan Railway Project. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 25th February, 1993. The Award was not accepted by the Respondent and at the instance of the Respondent, a reference was made under Section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.4,000/­ per Are. 3. The learned AGP submitted that the Respondent did not produce any comparable sale instances. He pointed out that the Respondent has relied upon a sale deed and a certified copy of the Index II of another sale deed without adducing any evidence to show that the lands subject matter of the sale instances were comparable to the acquired land. Inviting the attention of the Court to Paragraph 11 of the judgment, he submitted that the market value has been fixed only on the basis of the conjectures and surmises. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent pointed out that the Respondent relied upon the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No.21 of 1994 in respect of the land situated in the same village admeasuring 3 R which was notified under the same notification for the same public purpose. He pointed out that the Reference Court has fixed the market value of Rs.10,000/­ per Are in the said case. He pointed out that the evidence in the form of the ash 3 fa-1028.97 witnesses examined by the Respondent on the comparability has been adduced and, therefore, no interference is called for. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. On a plain reading of the impugned and award, the submission made by the learned AGP is no doubt attractive and his right to the extent of his submission on the basis of sale deed and Index II. In the absence of the evidence of comparability, enhancement could not have been granted on the basis of the said documents. 6. The son of the Respondent has stepped into the witness box. He stated that the land of one Anaji Dattaram Mahadik ( the Claimant in L.A.R. No.21 of 1994 ) was at a distance of half furlong from the acquired land. There is no cross­examination of the said witness on this aspect. Another witness examined by the Respondent deposed that a land of Anaji Dattaram Mahadik was half furlong away from the acquired land. The land of Anaji is in the same village which was notified for the same public purpose on the same day. 7. It is true that the acquired land of Anaji Mahadik admeasures 3 R. However, the market value has been fixed at Rs. 10,000/­ per R. The market value of the acquired land could have been determined on the basis of the decision in the said reference. Even if ash 4 fa-1028.97 more than 50% deduction is made on account of largeness of the area of the acquired land, still the market value of Rs.4,000/­ per R awarded by the Reference Court can be certainly said to be reasonable. 8. Though, the impugned judgment and award cannot be supported by the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, the same will have to be supported on the basis of the aforesaid judgment and award. There is no dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits. No interference is made in the impugned judgment and award. The First Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. The Civil Application No.6802 of 1997 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )