fast18695.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 18695 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Asaram Parbati Khurange .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 18631 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Bansi Nana Khurange & others .. RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 18684 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Chandrabhan Bhaguji Mergal & others .. RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 18693 OF 2009 fast18695.09 2 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Kisan Parbati Khurange .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 18689 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANT VERSUS Laxman Shivram Mergal & others .. RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 18686 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Raosaheb Nana Mergal & others .. RESPONDENTS ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7 th JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1 These appeals are presented by the State raising exception to the fast18695.09 3 judgment and award passed by the 5 th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Beed on 6-12-2005 in LAR No. 412/2003 and other companion matters. 2 Lands belonging to respective claimants / respondents herein came to be acquired for construction of village tank no. 2 Dhangarwadi, Tq. Ashti. Acquired lands belonging to each of the claimants comprise of small pieces below 1 Hector. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17-2-2000 and, after following the procedure prescribed under the Act, award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13-5-2002. Claimants were offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per R. Claimants being dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate application seeking reference of the matter to the civil court for determination of market value of the acquired lands. Claimants claim compensation in respect of acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per R. 3 In order to substantiate their claim, claimants place reliance on oral as well as documentary evidence. Documentary evidence consists of sale instances at exh. 17 and 18 which according to the claimants are comparable piece of evidence for ascertaining market value of the land. fast18695.09 4 Sale instance at exh. 17 is dated 11-2-1991 whereby an area to the extent of 40 R has been alienated for consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Land covered by the sale instance is stated to be Bagayat land. The sale-deed is approximately 9 years prior to section 4 notification. Another sale instance at exh. 18 dated 28-8-1998 is in respect of 30 R land which has been sold for consideration of Rs. 38,000/-. Sale instance pertains to seasonally irrigated land. 4 Reference court, considering the aspect that the acquired lands are dry crop lands, prescribed the value of the dry crop land at Rs. 950/- per R. Reference court also considered the issue in respect of proximity of the land covered by the sale instance and the acquired lands. Sale instance placed on record pertains to adjoining village. However, it has been stated by the witness for the claimants that quality and fertility of soil of both the lands i.e. lands covered by the sale instance and the acquired lands, is similar. Reference court also considered the aspect that the sale instances placed on record are approximately 9 years and 2 years prior to section 4 notification. Reference court granted additional allowance of 10% per annum and fixed market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 1095/- per R. Reference court, however, offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- fast18695.09 5 per R. Considering the reasons recorded in the judgment and on consideration of the copies of evidence made available by the learned AGP while arguing the appeal, I am convinced that the reference court has adopted reasonable view of the matter. Enhancement in the amount of compensation that has been granted by the reference court is quite marginal. It is also to be noted that a small piece of agricultural land comprising of area less than 1 hector has been taken in possession as such entitling the claimants to receive a meager amount. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the appeals presented by the State. Appeals are therefore dismissed. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb