fast25395.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25395 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Kallempasha Babalal Tamboli .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25467 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Dildar Sirojoddeen Tamboli .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the State. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2011. PER COURT : 1 These are the appeals presented by the State raising exception to the fast25395.10 2 judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. 515/2003 and 516/2003 decided by the II Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Osmanabad on 12-10-2009. 2 Agricultural lands belonging to the claimants came to be acquired for construction of percolation tank at village Takviki. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6-4-1995 and, after following the procedure prescribed under the act, award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25-6-1997. Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation in respect of acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 170/- per R. Claimants being dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate applications claiming reference of the matters to the civil court for determination of market value of the acquired lands. Claimants claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. 3 In order to substantiate their claim, claimants have placed reliance on oral as well as documentary evidence. Documentary evidence consists of certified copies of sale-deed in respect of alienation of land in the near vicinity of the acquired lands. Sale-deed at exh. 55 is executed by one Laxman Waghamare in favour of Mangalbai Vedpathak. Area sold under the sale-deed is 31 R out of gat no. 425 which has been alienated for fast25395.10 3 consideration of Rs. 50,000/- on 31-1-1998. The sale instance is post notification sale, as such, reference court did not give any weightage to the evidence in the form of sale-deed. Another sale instance placed on record at exh. 23 is in respect of alienation of land to the extent of 71 R in favour of one Mohd. Hanif Ahmed Hussain for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. The land situates at the same village and in the near vicinity of the acquired lands. Giving rise of 10 percent per year, reference court came to the conclusion that the market price of the acquired lands based on the evidence in the form of sale-instance would be Rs. 33,750/-. Reference court gave allowance to the positive factor namely the land covered by the sale instance was having facility of irrigation, deducted the amount of Rs. 8,750/- to arrive at market price of the acquired lands. Reference court, thus, determined market price of the acquired lands at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. 4 I have perused the impugned judgment and award and also gone through the evidence, copies of which are made available by learned AGP while arguing the appeals. I am of the opinion that determination of market value of the acquired lands by the reference court based on evidence in the form of comparable sale instance is proper and correct and in consonance with the parameters led down by the Apex Court in that fast25395.10 4 behalf. Considering the meager amount awarded by the reference court by way of enhanced compensation, I am of the opinion that interference in the appeals is not warranted. Learned AGP invited my attention to the evidence recorded by the reference court at the instance of claimants, in order to substantiate his case. On going through the judgment and award passed by the reference court and the material placed on record by learned AGP, I am of the opinion that appeals do not deserve favourable consideration. Both appeals therefore stand dismissed. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE,J.) dyb