( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 211 OF 1993 Sharnappa s/o. Shankarappa Malang .. Appellant since deceased as per L.Rs. [Ori. claimants] 1. Mallinath s/o. Sharnappa Malang, Age. 47 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o. Omerga. 2. Gangabai w/o. Sharnappa Malang, Age. 68 years, Occ. Household, R/o. As above. 3. Kalyanappa s/o. Sharnappa Malang, Age. 38 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. As above. 4. Kamalbai @ Basvabai Siddeshwarappa Togi, House No.422, Shukrawar Peth, Solapur. 5. Nilabai w/o. Kishanrao Mithari, Age. 57 years, R/o. Parchande Block, Opp. Old Shelginaka, Solapur. 6. Indubai w/o. Gurlingappa Shahabade, Age. 44 years, Shahabade Niwas, Opp. Alankar Talkies, Latur. Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 through their constituted power of attorney holder Shri Mallinath s/o. Sharnappa Malang, - appellant No.1. ( 2 ) Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Through Collector, Osmanabad. Shri M.S. Patil h/f. Shri B.R. Sontakke Patil, Advocate for the appellants. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. RESERVED ON : 07.07.2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.07.2009 J U D G M E N T :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by the legal representatives of original claimant being dissatisfied with the compensation that was awarded by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, while deciding Land Acquisition Reference No. 219 of 1988 on 10.07.1992. ( 3 ) 2. Some of the facts giving rise to this appeal are admitted at this stage. Survey No. 198/1, situated at Omerga, Tal. Omerga, is a land admeasuring 4 Acres 39 Gunthas. It was belonging to the appellant. Out of said land 1300 sq. mtr. land was acquired for Mutton shops and telephone exchange office by the respondent. It is case of the appellants that the land acquired was useful for residential purposes. The prevailing market rate was Rs.25 per sq. ft. The N.A. Permission was obtained, but since the land was reserved, layout could not be sanctioned. It is also said that Civil Court, Municipal Office, Tahsil Office are nearby the acquired premises. Thus, compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. ft. is claimed. 3. Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 126 (2) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P. Act) was issued on 15.02.1986. The award was passed on 14.12.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded rate of Rs.3=70 ps. per sq. ft. Being aggrieved thereby Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ( 4 ) was made. The Reference Court i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. Being aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed. 4. Only question that arises in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is as per prevailing market value. 5. Heard Adv Shri M.S. Patil h/f. Adv. Shri B.R. Sontakke Patil for the appellants and A.G.P.Shri D.V. Tele for the respondent/State. In all three sale instances were relied upon by the present appellants. They are at Exh.24, 25 and 26. The learned advocate for the appellants mainly relied on sale instance at Exh.26 at the time of arguments. Sale instnace at Exh.24 is of 5th December, 1991. Dr. Ashok Ahankari purchased property from Kamlakarrao Gunjotikar, advocate for Rs.81,000/-. Those are house properties bearing Nos. 117 and 118, in all total size of 60’ x 40’. The land is at Kasbe Omerga. It is clear that the sale instance was about five years after the date of notification i.e. ( 5 ) 15.02.1986. Similarly, sale instance at Exh.25 is in respect of sale-deed dated 29th April, 1991. One Shrimant Kage purchased property from Babulal Attar. The property was sold for Rs. 1,19,000/-. The property was house No. 115 admeasuring 334.52 sq.mtr. So, this cannot be also said to be comparable instance, as it was about five years after the notification regarding the acquisition. In my opinion, the learned advocate for the appellant rightly did not press his arguments regarding Exh.24 and 25 and mainly concentrated on sale instance at Exh.26. 6. Sale instance at Exh.26 is dated 19.08.1985. It was about six months prior to the date of notification on 15.02.1986. The purchasers were Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and the person selling the property was Govindrao Ramrao Kulkarni. Vendor is examined as a witness in this case. Plot of 40’ x 35’ was purchased for Rs.35,000/-. So, rate comes to Rs. 25/- per sq.ft. The learned advocate for the appellants said that this instance ought to have been relied upon and rate claimed ought to have been awarded. However, ( 6 ) A.G.P.Shri Tele argued that said sale instance is not of comparable land. P.W.2-Govindrao Kulkarni is examined at Exh.19. He stated that his plot was 100 ft. away from National Highway. The plot sold by him was 500 ft. away from the acquired land. In cross-examination it was suggested that the distance was more and he was not telling the truth. Witness Govindrao Kulkarni also spoke about another sale instance, but he was not witness to it. So, that instance was not considered. 7. On behalf of the appellants P.W.1 Mallinath is examined at Exh.18. He stated that the Government acquired his land for the purpose of construction of Mutton shop and telephone exchange office. His land is near National Highway and Omerga town. The acquired land was converted into N.A. In 1967. However, the land was reserved. He also said that the acquired land was near the Tahsil Office, Municipal Office and Kanya Shala. Police Station and Police Quarter were in Survey No.200 and Dak Bungalow was in Survey No.197. Then he referred to sale instance at Exh.26 and said that the acquired land was near Omerga city. So, this statement ( 7 ) in examination-in-chief shows that the acquired land was not in the town, but it was on the outskirt of it. It still bore Survey number and not Municipal house number. In cross-examination it is brought on record that the land purchased by Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank was in the heart of Omerga town. The claimant also admitted that in another land reference he got enhanced compensation at Rs.7/- per sq.ft. 8. Perusal of sale-deed Exh.26 shows that on the southern side of plot purchased, there was plot belonging to the Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank. So, it is clear that the plot purchased was plot adjoining the property already owned by the bank and therefore the bank could have special interest in purchasing the property. It is also clear from the description that the property purchased by the Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank was in the heart of the town. It was described that it is situated in ‘Kasbe Omerga’ bearing House No. 62 of Ward No.17. I do not find such similar description of the acquired land. So, it cannot be said that the sale instance at Exh.26 is comparable with the ( 8 ) land acquired. Moreover, the acquired land is big tract of 1300 sq.mtr. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the sale instances produced on record, namely, at Exh.24,25 and 26 are of comparable properties, and the acquired property could have fetched same rate when the notification was issued on 15.02.1986. 9. The Trial Court while determining the market rate of the land has taken into consideration that the learned advocate for the claimants had pointed out that for land just abutting highway acquired in 1988 compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq.ft. was awarded and after reference, Rs.1/- was enhanced per sq.ft. by the Reference Court. Discussion to that effect is in para 13 of the Reference Court’s judgment. Considering the facts of the case the Trial Court awarded enhanced rate of Rs.3.70 per sq. ft. awarded by the S.L.A.O. to Rs.8/- per sq.ft. 10. After careful consideration of all the circumstances, in my opinion, this is not fit case where ( 9 ) any interference is called for in this appeal. Hence, the First Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUL09/fa211.93