(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2009 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, .. Appellant Jayakwadi Project No.2, (Original respondent) Aurangabad. versus Shivprabhu s/o. Somnath Dnyane, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Chikalthan Wadali, .. Respondent Taluka : Kannad, (Original District : Aurangabad. claimant) ....................... Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellant. Mr. P.K. Patni, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 3RD MAY 2010 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. Admit. 2. The State feels aggrieved by the order of enhancement in land reference, allowing the petition at the rate of Rs. 800/- per Are, as against award of Rs. 400/- per Are, granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. For the purpose of decision of the appeal, record and proceedings need not be called, as it was sale deed which played vital role in the matter. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute about production of sale deed and its exhibit. It is only appreciation that warrants interference. 5. The certified copy of the revenue record and the sale deed is at Exhibit 18. It was in relation to an irrigated land (Bagayat) and the court also found that 22 mango trees were purchased by the said purchaser. The court observed, that the price could be Rs. 1300/- per Are, it being Jirayat land. The court also considered the market price of the acquired land, at the material time, could be at the most, Rs. 800/- per Are as it was Jirayat land. The sale instance relied and distinguished by the (3) learned Judge was certainly in tune with the notification dated 6-2-1997 and the sale deed thereof was eight months prior to notification. 6. The observation of the learned Judge, about the petition to be in limitation, as referred in paragraph 6 of the judgment, is also in tune with the settled legal position, does not brand the proceedings in Land Acquisition Reference No. 311/2000 were beyond any limitation. 7. The net result is, the order of enhancement at the rate of Rs. 400/- per Are additionally, for 4 Hectares 83 Are, by the learned Reference Court, does not warrant interference. 8. The First Appeal sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/fa1007