1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FA/1620/2009 WITH FA/1610/2009 WITH FA/1611/2009 WITH FA/1612/2009 WITH FA/1613/2009 WITH FA/1614/2009 WITH FA/1615/2009 WITH FA/1616/2009 WITH FA/1617/2009 WITH FA/1618/2009 WITH FA/1619/2009 WITH FA/1621/2009 WITH 2 FA/1622/2009 WITH FA/1623/2009 WITH FA/1624/2009 WITH FA/1625/2009 WITH FA/1626/2009 WITH FA/1627/2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Smt. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for appellant. Mr.V.D. Rakh, AGP for the State. ........ [CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ] DATE : 19th January, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the acquiring body-appellant. 3 Notices were sent to the respective respondents/ claimants, however no participation in the group matters. 2. Different house properties of the claimant-respondent for Borna Project at village Nannaj, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed was acquired, pursuant to the notification under section 4 dated 14.02.1979 and 03.10.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award. Being aggrieved by the said award, in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act respective claimants approached the learned Reference Court seeking enhancement. 3. It was canvased for the respondents-claimants since their entire property is acquired, the compensation paid was inadequate, necessary procedure as was required under the law was not followed. The L.A.O. has not considered the 4 market value of the property at the material time. No enquiry caused. Age of the house property was skipped. 4. The learned Judge on analysis of the evidence recorded that the Land Acquisition Officer has not followed the required procedure and consequently observed that there was no sale instances to arrive at particular quantum of compensation. The houses of respondents-claimants to be nearby railway station is also controversial aspect as it was not so informed by the claimants. The amount whatever was granted by the L.A.O. needed appropriate additional compensation, which could be Rs.1000/-. 5. The learned Judge also dealt with the provisions of Section 23(1) fifthly of the Land Acquisition Act. Such exercise, as carried out by the learned Judge, is apparently 5 unwarranted. But in the later part, skip its adjudication. 6. The fact remains, the learned Judge has on the basis of his own presumption and probabilities of value reached to the conclusion to enhance the price of the acquired property lumsum of Rs. 1,000/- and accordingly passed the award. The State/Acquiring Body feels aggrieved by the same. 7. Indeed observations of the learned Judge reflected hereinabove are not in tune either with settled principles of law or to the desirability to enhance to such an extent and particularly when the component of additional amount of Rs.1000/- has manifestly and abnormally changed the calculation which in effect are touching to the actual value of property fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of acquisition. 6 8. When the learned Judge could record a finding that the claimants did not adduce evidence as to sufferance of expenses left themselves, there are no reason to have granted notional amount of Rs.1000/-. 9. Taking survey of these facts, I find that the order under challenge of the Reference Court in all matters needs interference. 10. The learned Counsel representing the Acquiring Body has also placed orders of this Court in First Appeal No. 901/2008 (group matters) dated 13th June, 2008 and also in First Appeal No.2941/2008 (group matters) dated 10th November, 2008. These judgments are arising out of the same notification, same award and the identical findings of the learned Reference Court. 11. In the result, the appeals 7 succeeds. The order under challenge granting enhancement to the tune of Rs.1000/- and consequential benefits are quashed and set aside, no costs. The respective civil applications disposed of. [K.U.CHANDIWAL] JUDGE gas/fa1620.09