1 fa671 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.671 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. Babu Vishnu Chavan ...Respondent Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 The submissions were heard on 10 th August 2011. The appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 15 th September 2010 in a Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 The acquired land is bearing survey no.54/6 and 54/21 at Village Ambadpal, Taluka Kudal, District Sindhudurg. Notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 20 th September 1984. The land was notified for public purpose of construction of colony buildings for Talamba Irrigation project. An Award under section 11 of the said Act was made on 23 rd July 1985. The market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was not accepted by the respondent and therefore, at the instance of the respondents, a reference was made under section 18 of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Officer offered the market value at the rate of Rs.50/- per 2 fa671 Are for agricultural land and Rs.2/- per Are for Pot Kharaba land. By the impugned Judgment and Award, market value has been fixed at Rs.900/- per Are for cultivable land. In additional statutory benefits have been granted. 3 The learned A.G.P has taken the Court through the impugned Judgment and record of the case. He pointed out that the respondent claimant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence save and except the deposition of the respondent at Exh.15. He pointed out that there is no evidence adduced of any comparable sale instances. He submitted that only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the Reference Court has granted enhancement. He submitted that this being a case of no legal evidence, the claim for enhancement could not have been granted. 4 It is well settled law that a reference under section 18 of the said Act is an original proceedings and the initial burden is on the claimant to prove that the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The reference under section 18 of the said Act is not an appeal against the Award under section 11 of the said Act. The settled law is that an Award under section 11 of the said Act is merely an offer. 5 In the light of the settled principles, a reference must be made to the record of the case. Perusal of the Roznama of the proceedings shows that there is no documentary evidence adduced in the form 3 fa671 of any sale instances of comparable land. In paragraph 9 of the impugned Judgment, the learned Judge has made an observation that on perusal of the Award under section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the sale instances of the year 1982. The Reference Court has referred to valuation made by the panchas which is set out in the Award. The learned Judge noted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had assigned reasons for rejecting the said valuation. Thereafter, the learned Judge has proceeded to observe that mere fact that because the panchas have not mentioned the reasons in the panchanama is not sufficient to discard the opinion on the valuation by the panchas on the ground that it is not proved or it is absurd. In paragraph 10 of the Judgment the learned Judge has observed that the sale transactions up to the period of 1980 may not be material as the relevant date in the present case was 20 th September 1984. Thereafter, the learned Judge has considered the location of the acquired land. In paragraph 11, the learned Judge noted that the acquired land was situated at the distance of 1 to 1 and ½ Kilometer from village Kudal. The learned Judge thereafter made a reference to the sale instance of 1985 which shows the market value of Rs. 1000 per Are. After making reference to the opinion expressed in the Award under section 11, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the land was Rs.900/- per Are. 6 Thus, the learned Judge ignored that there were no comparable sale instances which were produced and 4 fa671 proved before the Court. The sale instances to which a reference was made in the Award under section 11 were not produced and proved before the Reference Court. Unless the said sale instances were produced and proved, only on the basis of the statements made in the Award under section 11 of the said Act, the Reference Court could not have considered those sale instances. Thus, this is a case where there was a complete absence of legal evidence to show that on the relevant date, the market value of the acquired land was much more than what was offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The burden was not discharged by the respondent by adducing any evidence. All these aspects have been completely overlooked by the learned trial Judge and enhancement in market value has been granted for which there was no legal basis. 7 In the circumstances, impugned Judgment and Award cannot be sustained and same will have to be quashed and set aside. 8 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment dated 15 th September 1990 is quashed and set aside. ii)Land Reference no.9 of 1988 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. iii)Appeal is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE