1 fa1082-421 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1082 OF 1998 1 Mallappa Basappa Mutnala (since deceased through L.Rs.) ...Appellants vs. The State of Maharashtra through 1 The Collector of Kolhapur 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.6, Kolhapur) ...Respondents ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.421 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra through 1 The Collector of Kolhapur 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.6, Kolhapur ...Appellant Vs. 1 Mallappa Basappa Mutnala (since deceased through L.Rs.) ...Respondents Mr.D.S.Sawant for the appellants Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 These cross appeals challenging the same Judgment and Award can be decided by a common Judgment as the challenge is to the Judgment and Award in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 made at the instance of the appellant in First Appeal no.1082 of 1998. The acquisition is in respect of the land bearing Gat 2 fa1082-421 nos.594 and 597 totally admeasuring 1 Hectare situated in Village Terani, Takuka Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur. Notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 19th December 1981. The land was notified for construction of Minor Irrigation Tank. The market value offered by Award under section 11 of the said Act was not accepted by the claimant and therefore, at his instance, reference was made. 2 By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court granted enhancement of Rs.33,438/- in market value of the land. The Reference Court granted total value of the well at a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and therefore, enhancement to the extent of Rs.10,125/- in that behalf was granted. 3 First Appeal no.1098 of 1998 has been preferred by the original claimant seeking enhancement in market value of land and the market value of the well as well as the structure on the land. First Appeal no.421 of 2001 has been filed by the State Government praying for setting aside the impugned award. 4 The learned counsel for the claimant has taken the Court through the notes of evidence and documents on record. He submitted that the sale deed at Exh.33 dated 20th March 1992 produced on record shows that the market value of a comparable land was at the rate of Rs.2000/- per Are. He submitted that the market value granted by the Reference Court is on the lower side. He invited the attention of the 3 fa1082-421 Court to the evidence of witness Shri Dayanand V.Gurav who deposed that the market value of the well was Rs.63.881.95. He submitted that the evidence of the said witness has not been challenged. The learned A.G.P for the State submitted that the market value granted is excessive and there was no basis for grant of enhanced market value of the land and well. 5 I have considered the submissions. As far as the market value of the land is concerned, the issue has been decided by the Judgment and Order of this Court dated 24th June 2011 in First Appeal nos.1078 of 1998 and 887 of 2002 in respect of the adjoining land acquired for the same project under the same notification. The Reference Court granted the enhancement in market value based on the same sale instance. This Court has confirmed the market value at Rs.570/- per guntha granted by the Trial Court. The market value has been granted in this case at the same rate. In view of the said decision dated 24th June 2011, no interference can be made with the market value of the land fixed by the Trial Court. The first issue is regarding valuation of the well. The witness Shri Dayanand V.Gurav in his evidence stated thus : 1...I have determined the value of the said well. I could determine the value of the Well to the tune of Rs.63.881.95. I have drawn the map and sketch of the well in scale, the map which is in scale now shown is the same. Its contents are true bears my signature. It is at Exh.51... 4 fa1082-421 It is true that the cross examination of the said witness is very cryptic. However, it will be necessary to make a reference to the Valuation Report at Exh-51 of the said witness. The report is dated 22nd March 1992. From the Valuation report, it appears that the valuer assessed the cost required to be incurred for constructing the well. He has not made the valuation of the well which was already standing on the acquired land. On plain reading of Exh.51, the expert has not determined the market value of the existing well on the relevant date. Therefore, the said opinion has no relevance. There is no other evidence adduced of the market value of the well. The Reference Court has considered the crop entries recorded in 7-12 extracts and the land assessment for coming to the conclusion that the value of the well was Rs.30,000/-. There is no reason to disturb the said reasonable amount. 6 The other claim was made on account of three mango trees. However, there is no evidence adduced to show that the mango trees existed on the acquired land on the relevant date. 7 Hence, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order to costs. 8 Civil application no.3820 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE