1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.38 OF 2010 with CA NO.5611/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.31 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5704/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.51 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5670/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.52 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5617/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.53 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5607/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.54 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5696/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.56 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5673/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.60 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5609/2008; FIRST APPEAL NO.61 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.5675/2008. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corpn., Aurangabad - APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SS Thombre, Advocate for Appellant; Mr.SD Kaldate, AGP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr.RD Khadap, Advocate for Respondents/Claimants ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Thombre, learned Counsel for the appellant/acquiring body; Mr.R.D.Khadap for 2 the claimants. Learned AGP appears for Respondent-State and leaves the matter to the orders of the Court. 2) Admit. The appeals are finally heard and decided at admission stage. 2) The acquiring Body - Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, feels aggrieved by a common Judgment of the learned First Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambejogai dated 28.4.2006, partly allowing L.A.R.Nos. 15/2005, 7/2005, 8/2005, 9/2005, 11/2005 and 6/2005. The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.275/- per R., which includes price determined and paid by the learned Land Acquisition Officer. 3) Mr.Thombre submits, the sale-instances referred by the learned Judge are for the properties of other villages, not in proximity to the acquired lands as they were from village 3 Gadegaon (Huda) while the lands of the present claimants/respondents were from village Kaudgaon (Huda). The learned Counsel for the claimants, during the course of his submission, said, the lands, to which reference is given in earlier Reference being L.A.R.No.359/2002 of village Gadekgaon (Huda), are not far away, may be at a distance of 1 km. 4) Mr.Thombre further submits, that in the light of judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 11 SCC 542 ( Basant Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) as referred in paragraph 5 - "5....The learned judges have adopted the principal that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and the compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis. The principal is wholly unsustainable in law and cannot be a valid ground for determination of compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes Backward, market value of interior land would 4 less even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value; it is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this case it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18 biswas of land in the village. So , all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market value and the Court should adopt realistic standards and pragmatic approach in evaluation of the evidence. No doubt, each individual have different parcels of the land out of that vast land. If that principle is accepted as propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the quality of the land, all will be entitled to the same compensation. That principal is not the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation fro all claimants involved in the same notification is not good principal acceptable for the afore stated reasons when both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc, then only equal compensation is permissible.” the learned Reference Court certainly erred in treating the sale instance as uniformly applicable. 5 5) It is a matter of record, the sale- instance from Gadegaon (Huda) were also referred by the learned Land Acquisition Officer. That apart, the lands mentioned in the sale-deed at Exhibits-23 and 24 are the lands acquired under the same Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition ACt, 1894 dated 28.4.1988 and for the same project. Based on the said two sale-deeds, Exhibits-23 and 24 in LAR No. 359/1992, the petitioners/claimants were granted compensation @ Rs.275/- per R. The learned Reference Court has other two sale-deeds and even had referred to the Award and E-Statement, Exhibits-25 and 26, which indicated that the learned LAO has determined prices of the acquired land @ Rs.75/- and 80/- per R. The learned Reference Court, considering the Exhibits-21 and 22, Judgments of the Reference Court, found that the sale transactions at Exhibit-23 and 24, make out a case for determination of the price @ Rs. 275/- per R. including the price fixed and paid by the L.A.O. The observation of the learned 6 Reference Court, in the fact situation, cannot be said to be perverse or that it is based on surmises. The Lordships of the Apex Court, in the above referred Judgment, have observed - " it is a common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent." To revert back to this case, it is apparent, since the lands are forming a part of the same notification and same project, different parameters could not have been applied and the learned Reference Court has even confined, while awarding the enhancement, which certainly oscillates between Rs.195/- to Rs.200/- per R. and rational, just and in consonance, to the situation at the site. Hence, order. 6) The appeals are dismissed. CA dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa38.10