fast8481.05 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8481 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra .. APPELLANT VERSUS Dropadabai Laxman Supekar .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8486 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra .. APPELLANT VERSUS Rangnath Mayanji Markad .. RESPONDENT Mr. K.S. Patil, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th JUNE, 2011 PER COURT : 1 These are the appeals filed by the State Government raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the reference court in LAR Nos. 46/1998 and 47/1998 decided on 21-10-2004. fast8481.05 2 2 Lands belonging to the claimants admeasuring 3 H and 32 R and 23 R respectively came to be acquired for construction of percolation tank at village Somthane Nalawade, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25-8-1994 and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act, an award came to be passed on 31-5-1996. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 209/- per R which according to the claimants is quite inadequate. Claimants, therefore, tendered separate applications requiring reference of the matters to the civil court for determination of proper market value of the acquired lands. In order to substantiate their claims, claimants have placed reliance on the evidence in the form of sale instances. There are in all six sale instances placed on record in respect of sale of agricultural lands in the near vicinity of the acquired lands. Sale instances are pre- notification sales and as such the evidence in the form of sale deed is admissible and required to be considered for fixation of market price of the acquired lands. Reference court found the sale instance at sr. no. 6 dt. 9-5-1994 in respect of sell of agricultural land admeasuring 44 R for consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, to be comparable with the acquired land. Sale transaction at sr. no.6 gives market value of the land at Rs. 681/- per R. fast8481.05 3 Claimants’ witness no. 2 has deposed about the quality and fertility of the land and has stated that the acquired lands are of the same quality and fertility as in case of the land covered by the sale instance at sr. no.6 . It is also taken note of by the reference court that the sale instance is dt. 9-5-1994 whereas notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is of later point of time i.e. 25-8-1994. It is also observed that there is a trend of rising prices in the village which is quite clear from the evidence in the form of sale instances for a period between 1993-1994 placed on record by the claimants. Considering the trend of rising prices of agricultural lands as well as considering the evidence in the form of comparable sale instances, reference court reached conclusion that the market value of the acquired lands shall be Rs. 681/- per R. 3 I have perused the judgment and award passed by the reference court and heard arguments advanced by Mr. K.S. Patil, learned AGP for the State. I am of the view that the reasons recorded by the reference court in directing enhancement in the amount of compensation are quite convincing. Enhancement that has been directed in the amount of compensation payable to the claimants is also quite moderate. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the fast8481.05 4 instant appeals. Appeals are devoid of substance hence stand dismissed. 4 Pending civil application, if any does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb fast8481.05 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11458 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11460 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th JUNE, 2011 1 These are the applications seeking condonation of delay of 101 days occurred in presenting the first appeals. 2 Heard. For the reasons recorded in the applications, applications deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. Delay of 101 days occurred in presenting the appeals stands condoned. Civil applications stand disposed of. ( R.M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb