1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 656 of 2002 APPELLANT: The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Officer, Medium Project, Buldhana VERSUS RESPONDENT: Shri Gajanan s/o Mari Surwade, aged about 35 years, occupation : agriculturist, resident of Bori Adgaon, Taluka Khamgaon, District : Buldhana ================================================ Smt. A.R.Taiwade, A.G.P. for the appellant ================================================ CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 13.8.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment passed by the reference court on 21.12.2000 granting compensation to the respondent @ Rs.62,500/- per hectare for the acquired land. The land of the respondent was situated at village Bori, Tahsil Khamgaon, District Buldhana. The section 4 notification was published in the news paper on 11.9.1991. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.3.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation to the respondent and the 2 other claimants within the range of Rs.15000 – 17000/- per hectare. The respondent was dissatisfied with the grant of meager compensation and hence he filed reference application before the Collector, Buldhana. The matter was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.50/1992. It was decided along with the other land acquisition cases by a common judgment dated 21.12.2000. The state has challenged the judgment passed by the reference court. 2] Mrs. Taiwade, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the reference court was not justified in enhancing the compensation at Rs.62,500/- per hectare. According to the learned AGP the court could not have relied on the transaction at Exhibit 18 to grant compensation @ Rs.62,500/- per hectare. The reference court has not appreciated the evidence properly before enhancing the compensation to such a great extent. According to the learned AGP the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. 3] None appears on behalf of the respondent though served. 4] On hearing the learned AGP, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this case. 1] Whether granting compensation @ Rs.62,500/- was just and proper? 2] What order? 3 5] To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the evidence on record. The claimant entered into the witness box and deposed about the quality and fertility of the land. He had stated that his land was irrigated land and was acquired for the canal project it was stated by him that the land was irrigated by well water and there was a electric motor pump on the well in the land. The claimant had stated that he took 2 crops from the land during a year. The crop of wheat, chilly, onion, was taken by means of well water and the corps like hybrid jawar, toor mung etc. were taken from the rain water also. The claimant stated that he used to utilize 20 to 23 cartload of manor for every year and also provided – fertilizer. He stated about the quantities of the corps and the grains which he received from the land, every year from one acre. The net yearly income according to the claimant per acre was Rs.25000/-. According to the claimant, the market value of the land was Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre at the relevant time. The expert’s report was placed on record and the expert was also examined by the claimant, copies of the Index II register were placed on record at exhibits 18 to 27. The reference court considered the sale transaction at exhibit 18 which showed that Namdeo had sold 1.63 H.R. of land to one Sumatilal for a consideration of Rs.51,500/- on 19.5.1990. The section 4 notification was issued in this case on 11.9.1991 and hence according to the reference court this transaction was important for 4 deciding the market value of the land. The claimants had produced the 7/12 extracts on record to show the crops which were yielded from the acquired land. The reference court considered the location of the land the other sale instances as well as the award passed by the reference court in yet another land acquisition case where compensation was granted to the claimants therein @ Rs.46,650/- per hectare, though the section 4 notification was issued much earlier in that case. The reference court determined the compensation by the considering oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, which included the expert’s oral evidence and the report submitted by the expert. No fault can be found with the approach of the reference court in dealing with the matter. The grant of compensation at Rs.62,500/- is just and reasonable. 6] In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.