ash 1 fa-131.96 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.131 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Vs. Bhagwat Rakhama Andhale. .. Respondent -- Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the State-Appellant. Shri R.M. Haridas i/by Shri P.N. Joshi for the Respondent. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . The State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 29th April, 1994 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ). 2. The acquisition relates to the agricultural land bearing Block No. 32 admeasuring 3 Hectare and 32 Ares situated at Village Khambale, Taluka – Sinnar, District – Nashik. A notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 12th December, 1985. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 2nd November, 1987 by which the market value was offered at the rate of Rs.12,400/- Per Hectare. At the ash 2 fa-131.96 instance of the Respondent, a reference was made under Section 18 of the said Act. 2. By the impugned Award, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.21,000/- Per Hectare. The Reference Court has also granted statutory benefits. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant submitted that out of the two sale instances relied upon by the Respondent, none of them are relevant as the same post notification sales. He submitted that the sale instance of the Sale Deed at Exhibit – 23 dated 23rd April, 1984, which is closest to the present case, shows the market value of Rs.13,400/- Per Hectare was in respect of a land which was better located than the acquired land. He, therefore, submitted that the market value fixed at Rs.21,000/- Per Hectare is excessive and unreasonable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent pointed out that the first sale instance of the Sale Deed dated 5th May, 1983 at Exhibit – 21 is in respect of the land situated near the acquired land shows that the market value was Rs.12,000/- Per Acre i.e. Rs.30,000/- Per Hectare. He pointed out that the 2nd witness examined by the Respondent deposed that the acquired land was of a better quality. He pointed out that the sale instance at Exhibit – 23 is of the land which is of a inferior quality as compared to the acquired land and, therefore, it fetched much lesser market value. He submitted that in respect of a comparable land subject matter of sale deed at Exhibit-21, the ash 3 fa-131.96 market value reflected of the year 1983 is of Rs.13,000/- per Hectare and, therefore, the market value of Rs.21,000/- per Hectare granted by the Reference Court is certainly reasonable and no interference is called for. 5. I have given careful considerations to the submissions. The area of the acquired land is 2 Hectare and 32 Ares and the relevant date for determination of the market value is 12th December, 1985. The Respondent stepped into the witness box. He pointed out that there was a Well on the acquired land and he was taking crops of onion, chilly and wheat. He stated that the area of 2 Ares was shown as Pot-kharaba instead of bagayat land. As far as the nature of the lands covered by sale instances, the Respondent has not deposed anything. The 2nd Witness examined by the Respondent, Malu Bagaji Andhale, is the son of the purchaser of the land admeasuring 40 Ares bearing Block No.98 of the same village under the Sale Deed dated 5th May, 1983. Consideration is shown at Rs.12,000/- Per Acre which comes to Rs. 30,000/- per Hectare. He stated that the acquired land was bagayat land and was superior than the land subject matter of Sale Deed which was jirayat land. In the cross-examination, he stated that half of the said land was a jirayat and half of the land was bagayat. 6. The 3rd witness examined by the Respondent is one Dashrath Babu Khade, who was the purchaser of land bearing Block No.468 admeasuring 1 Hectare situated in the same village by the sale deed dated 23rd April, 1984 for the total consideration of Rs.13,400/-. He stated that the acquired land was superior to the land purchased by him as the land ash 4 fa-131.96 purchased by him was jirayat and the acquired land was bagayat. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there was a road on the eastern side of the land purchased by him. He admitted that the land purchased by him was bagayat land. He admitted that the acquired land was situated in the interior area from the road and that the price of the land adjacent to the road is higher than the price of the land situated at interior. 7. The Respondent himself relied upon the two sale instances. The first sale instance is of a sale deed which has taken place about 2 years and 7 months prior to the relevant date in the present case. The second sale instance is closer to the relevant date which has taken place about 1 year and 7 months prior to the relevant date in the present case. Therefore, the first sale instance must be kept out of consideration. The second sale instance can be the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land. From the cross-examination of the witness Dashrath, it is clear that the land subject matter of Sale Deed dated 23rd April, 1984 was a bagayat land which was adjacent to a road and the acquired land was far away from the road. The land subject matter of the Sale Deed dated 23rd April, 1984 admeasures 1 Hectare whereas the acquired land has the higher area of 2 Hectare and 32 Ares. Apart from the distance from the road, there is no material difference between the land subject matter of the Sale deed dated 23rd April, 1984 and the acquired land. Since both the lands are bagayat lands, there will not be any significant difference between the prices of both the lands. While fixing the market value on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 23rd April, 1984, escalation at the rate of 10% will have to be considered. If escalation for a ash 5 fa-131.96 period of one and half year is considered, the market value as of December, 1985 comes to Rs.15,510/- per Hectare. By no stretch of imagination, the market value of the acquired land can be Rs.21,000/- per Hectare. Therefore, there is no basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.21, 000/- Per Hectare and the market value will have to be brought down as aforesaid. 8. Hence, I pass the following order. (i) The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the market value of the acquired land will be Rs.15,510/- Per Hectare instead of Rs.21,000/- Per Hectare. Rest of the Award is maintained as it is. (ii) The Appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. JUDGE