1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR First Appeal No. 51/2007 Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. V. A. Naik, J. DATED : March 28, 2007. Heard Shri Sonare, the learned A.G.P. for the appellants. The appellant-State of Maharashtra had acquired 1 hectare and 1 are of land belonging to the respondent for the purpose of submergence area of Chopan Tank. Section 4 notification was issued on 22/9/1988. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award granting compensation @ Rs. 11,000/- per hectare. The respondent, being aggrieved by the grant of meager compensation, filed a reference application before the Collector, Yavatmal. The matter was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 408/2002. The reference Court, by the judgment dated 2nd May, 2003, partially allowed the reference application and granted compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- per hectare. The appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment dated 2/5/2003 in this first 2 appeal. It is submitted by Shri Sonare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants that the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation as the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the material on record, had rightly granted the compensation @ Rs. 11000/- per hectare. According to the learned A.G.P., since there was no sale instance of comparable land, produced before the reference Court, the reference Court applied the income capatilization method but, while doing so, erroneously held that annual net profit derived by the respondent from one acre of land was Rs. 800/-. I have perused the judgment passed by the reference Court on 2/5/2003. Though the reference Court has rightly discarded the sale transaction at Exh.20, which was executed in the year 1995 as Section 4 notification was issued in this case on 22/9/1988, the reference Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the annual net profit fetched by the respondent from one acre of acquired land was Rs. 800/-. The reference Court considered the 7/12 extract at Exh.19 which revealed that the respondent took produce of H4 cotton and Tur from the acquired land. On the basis of the oral evidence tendered by the respondent to show that he was taking produce like cotton, tur and jowar from the 3 land in question and on consideration of the 7/12 extracts, the reference Court rightly arrived at a finding that the respondent was getting annual net profit worth Rs. 800/- per acre from the acquired land. Thus, by applying a multiplier of ten in accordance of the law laid own in 1996 (1) SCC 631, reference Court granted compensation to the claimant @ Rs. 20,000/- per hectare. I find no error whatsoever in the reasons recorded by the reference Court for arriving at the finding. The grant of compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- per hectare, is just and proper. The first appeal is, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP