IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.364 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra )..Appellant Versus Jitendra Anna Wathare & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Ms.Shilpa Gajare AGP for the appellant. Mr.Umesh R.Mankapure for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 9.6.2008. PC 1. This appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra impugning judgment and order dated 28.2.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Land Reference No.1 of 1986. 2. The acquisition in question was of an area of 73 R’s situated in Ichalkaranji. The property in question is situated to the north of Ichalkaranji town. It was originally held by 3 brothers. Each one had a 1/3rd share. The respondents are the heirs of these 3 brothers and take the shares as per stripes in the acquired land. In the land acquisition proceedings, an award of compensation of Rs.1,67,049/- was fixed, that was challenged in the reference. In the reference, claimants examined 5 witnesses. However, only one instance sale deed has : 2 : been properly proved. That instance sale deed concerns the sale of plot bearing R.S.No.616 admeasuring 1600 square feet. This plot was purchased on 5.7.1984 by one Laxman Satappa Madyapgol who was examined as claimant’s witness no.4. Though he did not produce the sale deed, he did produce the index of extract to indicate the purchase of plot. As per his evidence the said plot was agricultural land situated about half kilometer away from the acquired land. In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that the plot purchased by him was an open plot. The rate of purchase worked out Rs.133 per square meter. The cross-examination of this witness hardly runs to one paragraph and nothing has been brought in corss-examination to doubt his evidence. Taking into account the fact that the acquired plot is half a kilometer away, the Court has further reduced rate at Rs.60 per square meter i.e. about 40% of the rate of the instance sale . In my view, there is no reason to interfere with in the First Appeal. Hence, First Appeal is dismissed. The solvent surety given for withdrawal if any, stands revoked. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)