(1) FA. 17.1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus 1] Sakharam and [2] Rajamber S/o Sopanrao Gund, minors u/g of mother Sou. Jankabai w/o Sopanrao Gund, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 18 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus 1] Chand Khan s/o Badekhan, Age : 60 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed died LRs. 1A] Fakirkhan S/o Sk. Chandkhan Pathan Age : 25 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed 1B] Nawazkhan s/o Sk. Chandkhan Pathan, Age : 22 years, Occu.: & R/o as above .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 19 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant (2) FA. 17.1995 Versus 1] Sandipan S/o Tatyaba Gund, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus Shri Damu S/o Tatyaba Gund, Age : 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus Shri Shrimant S/o Tatyaba Gund, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus 1] Shri Prabhakar S/o Tatyaba Gund, Age : 32 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant (3) FA. 17.1995 Versus Suleman s/o Fatru Pathan, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 24 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus Shaikh Gani Babamiyan, Age:30 yrs., Occu.: Agri. R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus Shri Meheboob Fathru Pathan, Age : 60 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus Vishwambhar S/o Narayan Rautmare, Age : 58 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed .. Appellant Versus Shri Bhaskar S/o Tatyaba Gund, Age : 40 years, Occu.: Agri. (4) FA. 17.1995 R/o Kurla, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7312 OF 2008 IN CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 9641 OF 1998 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 OF 1995 Bhaskar Tatyaba Gund .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4328 OF 2006 IN CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 9641 OF 1998 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 OF 1995 Bhaskar Tatyaba Gund .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. J.S. Gavane, APP for the Appellant-State (in all the First Appeals) Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant in CA. 7312 of 2008 and CA. 7328.2006 Advocate for the Respondents:- Mr. Ujjwal S. Patil, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondents 1 and 2 (in FA. 17.1995, 18.1995, 20.1995) Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent(in FA.19.1995, 21.1995, 23.1995, 25.1995 and FA.137.1995) None present for the respondent though served (in FA. 22.1995, FA.24.1995, FA.26.1995) (5) FA. 17.1995 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1] These appeals arise from the common judgment dated 6.1.1993 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Beed, in the following Land Acquisition References, awarding enhanced compensation to the respondents in the respective First Appeals:- First Appeal no L.A.R. No. 17 of 1995 557 of 1991 18 of 1995 94 of 1991 19 of 1995 88 of 1991 20 of 1995 89 of 1991 21 of 1995 92 of 1991 22 of 1995 93 of 1991 23 of 1995 95 of 1991 24 of 1995 96 of 1991 25 of 1995 562 of 1991 26 of 1995 114 of 1991 137 of 1995 90 of 1991 . The respondents in first appeal no.137 of 1995 has also filed cross-objection seeking further enhancement of the compensation amount. All the proceedings can be disposed of by this common judgment. (6) FA. 17.1995 2] The references arise from the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gaothan Beed bearing no. 88/LNQ/SR/24 dated 20.7.1989. The lands of village Kurla Tq. Dist. Beed were acquired for minor tank (additional). Pursuant to the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) published on 17.9.1988, and pursuant to the notification under section 6 of the said Act published on 7.4.1989 and 8.4.1989, the Land Acquisition Officer, granted compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs.100/-, Rs.105/- and Rs.115/- per R. Small pieces of lands belonging to the respondents were acquired. Some of the lands were dry and some were irrigated. The respondents preferred references, demanding enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.50,000/- for irrigated land. The appellant-State of Maharashtra opposed the references. The learned Judge, of the lower Court held that the market value of the land was Rs.600/- per R for irrigated land and Rs.350/- per R for dry lands. The learned Judge also held that for the only well, that was acquired, there should be enhanced compensation of Rs.13,000/-. The respondents led evidence oral as well as documentary. They placed on record four sale instances. The first sale instance of sale deed (7) FA. 17.1995 exhibit 20 was of October, 1983. It was in respect of a land of adjacent village. As per the sale deed, exhibit 20, it is seen that a small piece of land having area of 33 R was sold for the price of Rs.30,000/-. The remaining three sale instances are of the same date (4.5.1989) and the lands sold were of the same village. But the lands sold through these sale instances were almost fragments. They were having area of 9-10 R. The sale deeds indicate that the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per R. One of the sale deeds exhibit 24 indicated that the land was sold for house building. Taking into account these sale instances and the oral evidence, the learned Judge of the lower Court held that the market value of the lands in question was less than Rs.1000 per R. 3] The question is whether the assessment of the market value made by the learned Judge of the lower Court was erroneous. The answer in my view, is negative. The learned Judge quite carefully considered the evidence and probably taking into account the small sizes of the lands which were sold through the sale deeds exhibit 22,23 and 24, held that the market value of the lands in question could not be Rs.1000/- per R. The learned Judge, rightly held that the market value of irrigated land could not be more than Rs.650/- per R. and the market value of the dry land could not be more than (8) FA. 17.1995 Rs.350/- per R. The award is thus, not unreasonable and exorbitant. There is no scope for further enhancement of the compensation which is sought by some of the respondents through their cross- objections. 4] I am, therefore, inclined to dismiss the first appeals as well as the cross-objections. The First Appeals as well as the Cross-Objections stand dismissed. Civil Application nos. 7312 of 2008 and 4328 of 2006 do not survive, and are dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/22july9/FA17.95