1 F.A. 1369.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1369 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1370 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1371 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1372 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1373 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1374 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1375 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1376 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1377 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1378 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mrs. Y.M.Kshirsagar,Assistant Govt. Pleader for State Mr. H.V.Patil, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 and 2. ............................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. These Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court partly allowing the Reference filed by the respondents/original claimants. 2. The lands of the present respondents came 2 F.A. 1369.10 to be acquired for the purpose of percolation tank at village Mandurki. The Special Land Acquisition Officer [ For short, ‘ Officer ’ ] awarded compensation @ Rs. 16,000/- per Acre. Bing dis- satisfied with the amount awarded, the claimants preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court partly allowed the Reference and awarded compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per Acre. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present Appeals. 3. Mrs. Kshirsagar, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader contends that the Reference Court without any evidence on record has enhanced the compensation amount exorbitantly. The sale instances considered are not relevant as they are of Bagayat lands and the lands which are acquired, are dry lands. According to the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, the Officer has considered all the factors and awarded reasonable compensation. 4. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the original claimants contended that the Reference Court has given detailed reasonings. The enhancement is also not much. The sale deeds on record shows that at the relevant time, the price of the land was Rs. 50,000/- per Acre. According to the learned counsel, the Reference Court has deducted the amount while awarding compensation. The learned counsel submits that the Reference Court has awarded reasonable 3 F.A. 1369.10 amount of compensation. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment and the relevant documents as made available by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Perusal of the Judgment shows that the Reference Court has relied on the sale deed ( Exh. 27 ) dated 3/9/1994 which was for Rs. 1,02,000/- for 2 Acres and 2 gunthas. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2/5/1995. As such, the said sale consideration can be considered as relevant consideration. So also, the sale deed ( Exh. 28 ) shows that 87 R. land was sold for Rs. 1,25,000/- on 14/7/1994. The said sale deed is of the land which is in the interior village. The same can be taken into consideration. The Reference Court has considered the said sale instances, which are available before it and had awarded modest amount of compensation. 7. In light of the above, the Appeals do not call for interference and as such the present Appeals are dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/F.A. 1369..........2010