ash 1 fa-911.94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.911 OF 1994 with FIRST APPEAL NO.912 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO.913 OF 1994 with FIRST APPEAL NO.914 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO.915 OF 1994 with FIRST APPEAL NO.916 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO.917 OF 1994 with FIRST APPEAL NO.918 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO.919 OF 1994 with FIRST APPEAL NO.920 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO.921 OF 1994 with FIRST APPEAL NO.922 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO.923 OF 1994 with FIRST APPEAL NO.924 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO.925 OF 1994 FA NO.911 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs 1. Sopan Balu Lungade, 2. Sukdev Balu Lugade, 3. Ambadas Balu Lugade, 4. Mahadeo Balu Lugade .. Respondents ­­ FA NO.912 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Pandurang Yeshappa Mainkar .. Respondent ­­ FA NO.913 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Vithal Yesu Tad. .. Respondent ash 2 fa-911.94 FA NO.914 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Bhaurao Shamrao Gunge and others. .. Respondents FA NO.915 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant vs Bhimrao Ramchandra Kadam. .. Respondent FA NO.916 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Panchakshri Gurappa Burkul. .. Respondent FA NO.917 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Nivruti Baba Lugade. .. Respondent FA NO.918 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Baveshwar Shivling Deshmane. .. Respondent FA NO.919 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Babu Damu Avatade, (dead) Deceased L.Rs.­ 1) Mahadeo Babu Avatade and others. .. Respondents ash 3 fa-911.94 FA NO.920 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Ramchandra Sukhdeo Ingale. .. Respondent FA NO.921 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs 1. Mainuddin Amajoddin Rongikar, 2. Dastgir Amajoddin Rongikar. .. Respondents FA NO.922 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. . .. Appellant Vs Shitaram Sakharam Langade. .. Respondent FA NO.923 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Satish Dnyanoba Dhage and another. .. Respondents FA NO. 924 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs 1. Shivanna Malkappa Havnale, (Since deceased through his Legal Heirs) 1a. Smt. Bhagirathibai Shivappa Havnale and others. 2. Mahaling Malkappa Havanale. .. Respondents FA NO.925 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Ranoba Bandu Jadhav. .. Respondent ash 4 fa-911.94 ­­ Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant in all Appeals. Shri Sagar Joshi i/by Shri S.M. Oak for Respondent No.1(C) in FA No. 924 of 1994. ­­ CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard the learned AGP for the Appellant. These Appeals are being disposed of by a common Judgment and Order as the several References under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) have been disposed of by a impugned common judgment. 2. The acquired lands are situated of Village Mangalwedha in District Solapur. The acquisition was for the public purpose for Ujani Project. The lands were notified in three notifications under section 4(1) of the said Act. In case of one group of Land Acquisition References, the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act is 10th July, 1969. In case of the second group of the Land Acquisition References, the relevant date is 24th June, 1971 and in case of the third group of the Land Acquisition References, the relevant date is 10th July, 1971. The Land Acquisition Officer made the Awards on 24th September, 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the acquired ash 5 fa-911.94 lands into various categories depending upon its assessment. On the basis of the revenue assessment, rates were fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired lands from Rs.1,500/­ per hectare to Rs.4,050/­ per hectare for the lands falling in various groups. By the impugned Judgment and award, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.6,000/­ per hectare in case of the land notified in the year 1969. For the rest of the lands, the market value has been fixed at Rs.7,000/­ per hectare. In addition, the statutory benefits have been granted. 3. The Learned AGP appearing for the Appellant made four submissions. First submission is that there is no sale instance of a comparable land produced before the Reference Court. Second contention is that the compensation was not accepted under protest by the Respondents/Claimants and third contention is regarding the bar of limitation. The last submission is that in any event, the market value is in excessive. None appears for the Respondents except the learned counsel appears for the Respondent Nos.1(C) in First Appeal No.924 of 1994. 4. As far as the last two submissions are concerned, the finding of the Reference Court in Para 11 of the impugned Judgment is that the statements submitted by Land Acquisition Officer along with ash 6 fa-911.94 the References clearly show that the compensation amount was received by the Claimants under protest. As far as the bar of limitation is concerned, the finding is that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that at the time of passing the Award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Claimants were present. There was no evidence adduced as regards the date on which the notices under Section 12(2) of the said Act were served. Perusal of the record shows that the said finding is consistent with the evidence on record and no interference is called for. 5. The lands situated at Village Mangalwedha acquired for the same project are subject matter of the Appeals. A common evidence was recorded in Land Acquisition Reference No. 356 of 1989. The Claimants examined themselves. The Claimants produced a large number of sale deeds, which were exhibited. The Reference Court considered the sale deeds at Exhibit­ 25 to 35 as well as Exhibit ­65 relating to the lands in the same village. The dates of execution of the sale deeds are from 1968 to 1972. The market value reflected from the sale deeds is between Rs.7,900/­ per hectare to Rs.15,400/­ per hectare. The Learned Judge has referred to the trend reflected from the market value reflected from the said sale deeds. On the basis of the sale deeds in respect of the lands situated in the same village, for the lands acquired on the basis of the notification of the ash 7 fa-911.94 year 1969, the market value has been fixed at Rs.6,000/­ per Hectare. The market value for the lands notified in the year 1970 has been fixed at Rs. 7,000/­ per Hectare. 6. It is well settled that the determination of the market value under section 23(1) of the said Act by its very nature involves some element of guess work. After considering a large number of sale instances, the learned Trial Judge has taken less than the minimum market value reflected from the said sale deeds for fixing the market value as of the year 1969. For fixing market value of 1970, escalation of only Rs.1,000/­ per hectare has been taken into consideration. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the market value fixed by the Reference Court is reasonable and is supported by the documentary evidence on record. As the award under section 11 of the said Act has been made in the year 1986, there is no dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits. 8. Hence, there is no merit in the Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )