1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.93/1994 Jaharabee w/o Mohmed Shafi Kazi Deceased -through her L.Rs. 1-A] Mohd.Shafi s/o Gulam Husen Kazi, Age 72 yeras, Occ- Pensioner, R/o Paranda 1-B] Mohd.Rafi S/o Mohd.Shafi Kazi, Age 38 years, Occ- Service, R/o as above. 1-C] Mohd.Jaki s/o Mohd.Shafi Kazi, Age 34 years, Occ- Service, R/o as above. .. APPELLANTS [Orig.Petitioners/Land Owners] VERSUS The State Maharashtra through the Collector, Osmanabad (Notice to be served through AGP High Court Bench at Auragnabad) .. RESPONDENT .... 2 Shri R.S.Deshmukh,Adv.for appellants Shri N.H.Borade,AGP for Respondent. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 31/07/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 30/6/1993 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, dismissing the claim of the appellants for enhancement of compensation, made in Land Acquisition Reference No. 374/1989. 2] The land under acquisition admeasures 82 Aar from Survey No. 273/1 of village Paranda, which was owned by the appellant. By notification dated 22/3/1984, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the land in question was acquired for percolation tank. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting market value of the land in question, at Rs.50,740/- for the acquired area of 82 Aar. 3] Being dissatisfied by the award, determining market value at Rs. 50740/- the appellant preferred Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 374/1989. The appellant claimed the market value of the land at Rs. 25000/- Aar. In addition to this, the appellant also claimed an amount of Rs.3000/- towards compensation of 3 Neem trees and 7-8 Babul trees. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined Chandrakant Shiram Sadekar as P.W.2. The appellant produced on record the sale deed Exh.22 in respect of Survey No.6 of village Paranda, owned by P.W.2 Sadekar. It was the sale deed dated 17/10/1984. The appellant also relied upon two other sale deeds at Exh.23 dated 1/12/1989 in respect of survey no.8 and Exh.24 dated 8/1/1990 in respect of Gat No.10. 4] The learned Judge of the Reference Court considered the entire evidence brought on record and recorded a finding that the only sale deed which can be considered is at Exh.22 dated 17/10/1984, reflecting a price of Rs.60,000/- for sale of 10 Gunthas of land in different parts. According to learned Judge of the trial Court, this was the only sale instance which was proximate to the date of issuance of notification dated 23/2/1984. According to the learned Judge of the trial Court, other two instances dated 1/12/89 at Exh.23 and 8/1/1990 at Exh.24 were much subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and hence it could not be taken into consideration. The trial Judge has also recorded a finding 4 that Exh.22 was only in respect of sale of 2 Gunthas of land and the same was about 1 Km. away from the land under acquisition. It was also a finding recorded that the lands under Exh.22 were small pieces of lands, sold for non agricultural purposes. That the learned Judge of the trial Court thus rejected the claim of the appellants. The learned Judge has held that once the sale instances at Exh.22, 23 and 24 are rejected, there is no material placed on record to enhance the market value of the land. 5] I have heard Shri R.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel submitted that the land in Exh.22 and the land under acquisition both situate in the same village. On the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.2, it was pointed out that the land in question was situated at a distance of hardly half furlong away from the land under acquisition. 6] The trial Court has recorded a finding that the sale deeds at Exhs.23 and 24 were not proximate to the date of issuance of notification and hence rightly rejected the claim based on those sale deeds. The only sale deed considered was at Exh.22 in respect of Survey No.6. The learned Judge of the trial Court has recorded finding that (1) that it is only a small piece of land of 2 gunthas which is 5 sold by Exh.22 sale deed and hence the sale cannot form the basis of large area of 82 Aars of land in question, (2) the land in Exh.22 is at a distance of 1 Km. away from the land acquired and the same is situated within the municipal limits and therefore, they are bound to fetch more price than the land in question which is out of municipal limits. The land under Exh.22 was not sold for agricultural purpose but the same was sold for the purpose of plots and there is no material placed on record to show that the land under Exh.22 was not converted to N.A. purpose. On the basis of these distinguishing factors, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly discarded the claim on the basis of sale deed Exh.22. 7] It is well settled that the claimant has to bring on record the evidence of substantial nature to claim the price exhibited by the sale instance brought on record and relied upon for claiming enhancement of compensation. The evidence has to be in relation to the situation of the plots, the size, the frontage, the nearness to the developed areas, the purpose for acquisition/sale, the proximity to the sale instances as well as to the date of issuance of notification etc. After going through the oral evidence adduced by the appellant and the documents placed on record, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no material brought on record by the appellant to compare his land with the land in 6 Exh.22. The trial Court therefore, rightly rejected the claim of the appellant by recording distinguishing features, which according to me are relevant and valid. 8] So far as the claim for an amount of Rs.3000/- in respect of 3 Neem trees and 7-9 Babul trees is concerned, the learned Judge of the trial Court has recorded a finding that there is no evidence brought on record to support such claim. The 7/12 extract filed at Exh.17 nowhere shows the existence of any such trees. The evidence of P.W.1 also does not indicate the existence of such trees. I have also gone through the evidence of the claimant, however, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this claim. 9] In view of above, there is no substance in the instant Appeal. The same is therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] JUDGE umg/fa93-94