(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO. ............... OF 2009 (Stamp No. 5901/1999) The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1) Shri Shriram Daulat Patil, deceased through legal representatives : i) Smt. Lilabai w/o. Shriram Patil, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. Rajuri (Bk.), Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. ii) Shri Namdeo Shriram Patil, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. Rajuri (Bk.), Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. iii) Sau. Mangalabai w/o. Vishwaarao Patil, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Sarve, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. (2) iv) Sau. Sakubai w/o. Shantaram Patil, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Dahivad, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. v) Sau. Ranjanabai w/o. Chandrakant Patil, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Pachora, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. vi) Sau. Pushpabai w/o. Sunil Patil, Age : 22 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Mohadi, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. vii) Shri Perashuram Shriram Patil, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. Rajuri (Bk.), Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellant. Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1(i) and 1(vii). .......................... (3) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Appeal taken up for admission. Office to register it as First Appeal. 2. By way of present appeal, the appellant State has taken an exception to the judgment and award passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 158/98, dated 22nd April 1998. 3. Mr. S.K. Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the appellant, submits that though the Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation for different amounts, from Rs. 18,000/- per hectare to Rs. 30,000/- per hectare, the same has been enhanced by the reference Court, to Rs. 80,000/- per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs. 1,60,000/- per hectare for Bagayat land. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award is not sustainable in law. 4. Mr. S.S. Bora, learned Counsel appearing for respondent (4) nos.1(i) and 1(vii), submits that the reference Court, after taking into consideration the comparable sale instances, has rightly awarded the compensation and, therefore, it needs no interference. 5. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award would reveal that the learned Judge of the reference Court has relied on a sale instance executed on 11th April 1985 by one Kamalabai, who had purchased 78 R land of Gut No. 84 for a consideration of Rs. 24,900/-. Though the sale instance had taken place about four years prior to issuance of Section 4 notification, the learned Judge of the reference Court found that it was a comparable sale instance, inasmuch as, the land was near the land which was acquired. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the reference Court had arrived at the rate of Rs. 63,846/- per hectare as on 11th April 1985. The said land was a Jirayat land. The learned Judge of the reference Court has found that since the sale instance was of 1985, the claimants were entitled to 10 % increase every year and, as such, amount would come around Rs. 89,384/-. The learned Judge of the reference Court, however, instead of Rs. 89,384/-, found that the amount of Rs. 80,000/- per hectare was just and reasonable compensation for Jirayat land. It was accordingly found that twice of that amount i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/- per hectare, was reasonable and just compensation for Bagayat land. 6. Upon re-appreciation of the material on record, we find that the findings arrived at by the reference Court are just and proper. The said findings are arrived at, by the reference Court, by taking into consideration the relevant material. (5) 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/fast5901