1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR First Appeal No. 745 of 2011 Baburao Deorao Wagh ...Versus... The State of Maharashtra & anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Tushar Darda Advocate for appellant. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP, for Res. …. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 30.09.2011. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Section 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13.11.2003 and Award was passed on 14.2.2007 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. metre. He submitted that the Reference Court enhanced the compensation at Rs.600/- per sq. metre. Learned counsel argued that the enhancement by the Reference Court was on a lower side as the Reference Court did not consider the relevant evidence brought on record. He argued that the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the 2 compensation looking at the potentiality of the land. Learned AGP supported the impugned judgment and Award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties the following point arises for my determination : “Whether the Reference Court on the basis of evidence placed before it committed an error in not awarding compensation claimed at Rs.200/- sq. ft.?” I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and Award. At the outset, I find that the courts below did not get any evidence of the relevant date, namely before issuance of Section 4 notification. However, Reference Court sympathetically considered the fact that the rate at Rs.15/- per sq.ft. was on a lower side and it was required to be enhanced in the light of increasing market prices of residential houses in the village. The Reference Court observed that the appellant did not have any documentary evidence to show enhancement of prices of land in the village, except a sale-deed which was after four month of Section 4 notification. The Reference Court rightly observed that it was not possible to consider the sale-deed for valuation post section 4 notification. The Reference Court 3 did not stop there and went on to consider the case of the appellant sympathetically and found by approximation and looking to the location of the plot in the village that the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. metre would be just and proper compensation. It will have to be borne in mind that the rate has to be considered on the date of section 4 notification, which in this case is 13.11.2003. Thus the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. metre on 13.11.2003 granted by the Reference Court can certainly be treated as just compensation. In the absence of any documentary or other oral evidence on record, I do not think that the appellant should be given a false hope that he would get any more compensation than the one awarded by the Reference Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. F.A. No. 745 of 2011 is dismissed summarily. Judge /TA/