fast21660.09 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 21660 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Versus Subhash Baburao Jagtap ...Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 21732 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 21726 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 21735 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 21729 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 21738 OF 2009 ..... Mr. K.S. Patil, AGP for the appellants ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard Shri Patil, learned AGP for the appellants. The State has raised exception to the judgment and award passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, Latur decided on 27.4.2007 directing enhancement in the amount of compensation payable to the respondents-claimants. 2 The agricultural lands belonging the respective claimants came fast21660.09 -2- to be acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation tank at village Hipperga, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 1.4.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following procedure as prescribed under Land Acquisition Act passed an award on 15.10.2001 and determined the value of acquired land at Rs.16,400/- per acre. 3 The claimants being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate applications seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for the purpose of determination of proper value of the acquired lands. The Reference Court after considering evidence led by the respective claimants arrived at conclusion that proper market value of the acquired lands shall be Rs.30,000/- per acre and accordingly directed the State to make the payments of enhanced compensation. 4 In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants have relied upon four sale instances at Exh. 27 to 30. The trial court did not accept the sale instance at Exh.27, 28 and 29. However, the court found sale instance at Exh.30 is acceptable. Sale deed at Exh.30 is dated 1.7.1988 i.e. prior to 10 years of the acquisition of lands in question. One Arunkumar Bangad purchased land out of survey No. 68 admeasuring 1 acre 7 gunthas of eastern side of village Wangji on fast21660.09 -3- 1.7.1988 for consideration of Rs.29,000/-. It is brought on record by producing evidence in the form of village map at Exh.25 that village Wangji is at a distance of 2/3 kilometers from village Hipperga. The witnesses have deposed about quality and fertility of soil. The Reference court on consideration of law laid down by this court in respect of determination of amount of compensation on the basis of comparable sale instances, deemed it appropriate to accept the evidence in the form of sale instance presented at Exh.30. The sale instance of the year 1988 gives price of the land at Rs.600/- per R. The claimants also relied upon the judgments in the previous land acquisition references which are placed on record at Exh.26 and 38. The judgment at Exh.26 is in respect of acquisition of land of village Wangji and the Reference Court appears to have determined compensation of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre on 12.11.1997. The judgment at Exh.38 pertains to village Hipparga and compensation determined in respect of acquired agricultural property by the Reference court is at Rs.600/- per R on 28.1.2007. 5 Considering evidence in the form of comparable sale instance, allowing 5% increase in the amount of compensation considering the date of sale instance which is prior to 10 years of Section 4 notification in the instant matter as well as on consideration of copies of awards passed by the Reference Court placed at Exh.26 and 38, the fast21660.09 -4- Reference court arrived at the conclusion that proper market value of the acquired lands shall be Rs.750/- per R i.e. Rs.75,000/- per hectare. On perusal of the judgment as well as the copies of the record made available for perusal I am convinced that view taken by the Reference Court is rational and proper. The finding in respect of market price of acquired property has been arrived at on the basis of evidence placed on record by the claimants, which I find to be reasonable. Considering the reasons recorded by the Reference Court as well as on consideration the material placed on record, the Reference Court has allowed the References made in respect of acquired agriculture lands belonging to the claimants. I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in these first appeals. The appeals presented by the State government are devoid of substance and same stand dismissed. 6 In view of dismissal of appeals, respective civil application Nos. 11464, 11466, 11468, 11470, 11472 of 2009 and 788 of 2010 seeking stay to the impugned judgment and award do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed accordingly. ( R.M. BORDE. J.) rlj/