IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.129 of 1990. APPEAL NO.129 of 1990. APPEAL NO.129 of 1990. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.10, Kolhapur, District Kolhapur ..Appellants versus Shrimant Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade ..Respondent (Original Applicant/ Claimant) Ms.S.P. Manchekar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for the State Mr.Rajesh Patil i/b. A.K.Abhyankar for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. : R.Y.GANOO, J. : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED DATED DATED : 6th April, 2009. : 6th April, 2009. : 6th April, 2009. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. 1. The present appeal is filed so as to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Kolhapur dated 18.2.2009. 2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: . Respondent herein was holder of land bearing Revision Survey No.676 admeasuring 1.21 hectares situated at Pattankodoli, District -2- Kolhapur. Both the sides conceded that the said land (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Land") came to be acquired in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Said Act") and that the Collector passed the award directing that the sum of Rs.52481.30 be paid to the respondent by way of compensation. The respondent was aggrieved by the said quantum of award granted. Hence he filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act. That is against the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.10, Kolhapur. In the course of hearing of the reference, the learned Second Addl. District Judge (hereafter referred to as learned Addl. District Judge) granted compensation to the respondent to the tune of Rs.53,821/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24th February, 1982 and one year thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. Since after the expiry of one year period from 24.2.1982 to the satisfaction of the entire claim, costs were also awarded as per the Order dated 18.2.1989. It is this Order which is subject matter of the present appeal. 3. On consideration of the record, following points do arise for my determination -3- i. Whether the learned Addl. District Judge erred in fixing the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.53,821/-? ii. What Order. My answer to point No.1 is in the negative and point No.2 is as per the final order. 4. It is admitted by and between the parties that during the course of evidence, in all four sale instances were placed before the Court and witnesses were examined in support of the respective sale instances. Two sale instances pertain to Village Ingale, whereas one sale instance pertains to the very village where the suit land is situated and that sale instance is in the nature of Sale Deed dated 22.6.1983 and on consideration of the said evidence it is noted that for the land admeasuring .38 Ares, a sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid by way of consideration. 5. Fourth instance pertains to Village Ingale, the village adjacent to the village wherein the suit land is situated and the Sale Deed is dated 19th April, 1978 and for land admeasuring .99 Ares. Consideration paid is sum of Rs.25,000/-. -4- 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the learned Addl. District Judge has erred in fixing the price as set out in the final Order, as according to her the sale instance relied upon by the parties before the said Court are not in regard to the period at which Section 4 notification came to be issued on 13th April, 1978. According to her the instance quoted on record are of the period 1980 onwards and according to her the property rates on which the lands were being dealt with in the year 1978 in the said village where the said land is situated have not been placed before the Court and therefore the sale instances referred to by the claimant ought not to have been looked into. 7. I am not inclined to accept this argument because in a given case it may not be possible for a party to produce before the Court the sale instance of the very year in which the suit land became subject matter of acquisition. In my view, the Court will have to consider whether effort was made by the party to place before the Court the_ rate in respect of a particular land, may be in the year in which the land is sought to be acquired or nearabout time when the land is sought to be -5- acquired. It is also pertinent to note that the procedure for acquisition of the land commenced in the year 1978 and the land acquisition award came to be passed on 11th October, 1983 and declared on 22nd February, 1984. If this is a factual situation, and if the sale instances are quoted of the year 1983 or thereabout, one may not be in a position to discard them. 8. The relevant deed so far as the village in which the suit land is situated is of the year 1983 i.e. 22nd June, 1983. One may not look into the sale instance of another village, if the sale instance of the land which is situated in the same village is available. In June, 1983 the sale in respect of .33 Ares took place for Rs.35,000/-. If this is taken into consideration, One Hectare of land is sought to be sold for Rs.1,06,000/-. If this is the position in the year 1983, one may easily accept that the suit land would have fetched atleast a sum of Rs.50,000/- per Hectare. The respondent expects that he should get sum of Rs.50,000/- per Hectare. If, in the year 1983, One Hectare could fetch a sum of Rs.1,06,000/-, say Rs.1,00,000/- for approximation, certainly keeping in view the preponderance of probabilities, the rate of land would not be definitely less than -6- Rs.50,000/- in the year 1978. In my view, the observations of the learned Addl. District Judge, fixing the price at Rs.58,321/- cannot be considered as out of proportion. 9. It was sought to be argued that the fourth transaction relating to Village Ingale dated 19th April, 1978 for .99 Ares for Rs.25,000/- was considered by the learned Addl. District Judge as distress sale and that there was no material to hold that. Even if this argument is accepted, once it is observed that if the sale instance is of other village are to be ignored when the sale instance of the suit land is available, the observation of the learned Addl. District Judge as regards sale instance of 7th April, 1978 can be ignored. 10. In the substance, I am inclined to observe that the rate fixed by the learned Addl. District Judge in regard to the suit land is reasonable and that his observation that market value of the land would be Rs.50,000/- per Hectaare is required to be upheld. Hence the judgment and order dated 18.2.1989 is required to be accepted as no other point was placed before this Court and confirmed accordingly. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, -7- point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. 11. In view of the answer to point No.1 in the negative, the appeal will have to be dismissed. Appropriate Order shall be passed hereunder and point NO.2 is decided as per final order. . For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following Order. ORDER . Appeal is dismissed. Appellant to pay to respondents costs of this appeal. (R.Y.Ganoo, (R.Y.Ganoo, (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) J.) J.)