1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.557 of 1993 Maruti s/o Namdeo Narsale age 32 years,occup.Agriculture, r/of Makani Taluka Omerga, Appellant/ori. District Osmanabad. claimant versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Osmanabad. With First Appeal No. 559 of 1993 Umakant s/o Shankarappa Sonpette age 35 years, occup. Agriculture, r/of Makani, Taluka : Omerga, Appellant/ori. District Osmanabad. claimant versus The State of Maharahstra, through the Collector, Respondent/ori Parbhani. Respondent. ----- Shri S.K.Shelke, Advocate, for appellants. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. 2 Coram: P.R. Borkar J. Date : July 14, 2009. Oral Judgment 01. These are the two appeals arising out of judgments and awards passed by learned Reference Court i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.159 of 1988 and 15 of 1987 decided on 29.9.1992 and 21.2.1990 respectively. 02. The lands involved in both the L.A.Rs. were situated at village Makani. In First Appeal No.557 of 1993 which is against judgment and award in L.A.R. No.159 of 1988, land admeasuring 83 Are out of survey No.29/3/2 was acquired, whereas in First Appeal No. 559 of 1993 which is against judgment and award in L.A.R. No.15 of 1987, land admeasuring 1 hectare 72 Are out of survey No.24/3 was acquired. Acquisition was for Lower Terna Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16.4.1984 and Section 4 notification was issued on 8.10.1984. The Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO" for short) passed award in both the matters on 17.4.1986, granting compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/= per acre for land acquired in First 3 Appeal No.557 of 1993, whereas rate of Rs.5,840/= per acre was fixed for land involved in first appeal No.559 of 1993. Reference Court awarded Rs.9,000/= per acre in respect of land involved in First Appeal No.557 of 1993 which is against judgment in L.A.R No. 159 of 1988 and he awarded Rs.8,000/= per acre for land involved in L.A.R. No.15 of 1987 against which First Appeal No. 559 of 1q993 is filed. The claimants prayed compensation at the rate ranging between Rs. 20,000/= to Rs.30,000/= per acre. 03. The point for consideration which arises in both these first appeal is whether the rates of compensation awarded by the Reference Court are as per market value prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 04. Heard Shri S.K. Shelke, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, learned A.G.P. for Respondent-State. 05. Advocate Shri Shelke relied upon the common judgment of this court in First Appeal Nos. 574/1992 and 38 of 1993 decided on 8.1.2008 and also on the judgment in First Appeal No. 326 of 1999 decided on 2nd/6th December 2005. Advocate Shri Shelke argued that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in LAR Nos.170/87 4 and 189/87 (First Appeal Nos.574/92 and 38/93) was issued on 2.12.1982 which was a date prior to section 4 notification in present case, which is 16.4.1984. He also pointed out that notification under Section 4 of the said Act in sofar as First Appeal No.326 of 1999 decided on 2nd/6th December 2005 is concerned, is dated 18.7.1984. The lands involved in said matters are situated at village Makani. Those were acquired for construction of canal for Lower Terna Project and those are almost of the same quality and, therefore, learned counsel, relying upon judgments in above First Appeals which are taken on record and marked Exhibits `X' and `Y' for identification, prayed that compensation between Rs.17,000/= to Rs. 22,000/= per acre be awarded. Learned Advocate for appellant also referred to judgment in group of first appeals (First Appeal No.180/1993 and others) decided on 16.6.2009 a copy of which is taken on record and marked `Z' for identification, and submitted that in that case notification was issued on 2.12.1982 and the court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.17,000/= per acre. 06. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, learned A.G.P. for Respondent-State, after going through copies of the the judgments at Exhs. X and Y which are relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that no appeals are filed against those judgments and as such those have attained 5 finality. 07. So far as relevancy and admissibility of previous judgments and awards passed in respect of comparable instance are concerned, the law appears to be now well settled and the same can be taken into consideration. In the case of Daisy and another v/s The State of Kerala, AIR 1971 S.C. 2272, it is observed that in fixing compensation for plots awarded, the market price fixed in respect of a contiguous plot recently acquired can be taken into consideration and compensation fixed after comparing relative situation and importance of the plot. 08. In the case of Sharadchandra Chimanlal and ors vs. State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 1987 Gujarat 55, it is observed in paragraph 13 that in fixing compensation for land acquired, the market price fixed in respect of contiguous land which is also acquired can be taken into consideration and compensation is to be fixed in the light thereof after comparing the relative situation and importance of the two plots. Case of Daisy (supra) was relied upon. 09. In K.Periasami vs. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), (1994) 4 SCC 180, in para. 2, the Supreme Court took into consideration the rate awarded by the High Court in respect of other 6 lands and after comparing the lands involved, observed that the lands involved in the appeals before the Supreme Court were possessed of better advantageous position than the lands covered in the other appeals and in the situation the appellant is entitled to parity of the market value for the acquired lands. 10. In the case of Bhim Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 4382, the Supreme Court has observed as follows; " Even otherwise when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceeding this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments." 11. So, considering the position in law and the fact that the lands involved in present group of two matters are comparable with lands involved in group of first appeals, copies of judgments in which are taken on record of present appeals and marked as Exhibits X and Y, in my opinion, in the present matters compensation at the rate of Rs. 7 17,000/= per acre can be awarded. It is also argued before me that the sale instances quoted in Land Acquisition References before this court, were quoted and considered in the judgments at Exhibits X and Y. In view of this, both the appeals deserve to be allowed. 12. It is directed that the Respondents shall be liable to pay to the appellants, compensation at the rate of Rs.17,000/= per acre, in stead of rate awarded by the Reference Court, along with other statutory benefits, such as 30 per cent solatium, 12 per cent component under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest on additional amount, as a result of this judgment, under Section 28 of the said Act. Appeals are, accordingly allowed and disposed of. pnd/fa557.93 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)