1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR First Appeal No. 155/2007 Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. V. A. Naik, J. DATED : February 28, 2007. Heard Shri Kale, the learned A.G.P. for the appellant. By this first appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment passed by the reference Court on 31/7/2003 in Land Acquisition Case No. 167/1993. By the aforesaid judgment, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana, enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent by Rs. 40,200/- for the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. I have perused the judgment passed by the reference Court as also the record. The land belonging to the respondent was acquired by the appellant-State for construction of Minor Irrigation Tank. Section 4 notification was issued on 9/2/1991 and Section 6 notification was issued on 3/9/1992. The respondent had claimed compensation @ Rs. 75,000/- per hectare before the Land Acquisition Officer, however, the Land Acquisition Officer had granted a meager compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- per 2 hectare. Being dissatisfied by the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent filed a reference application before the Collector, Buldhana. The reference Court, after taking the relevant factors and provisions of law into consideration, enhanced the compensation by Rs. 40,200/- and granted compensation to the claimant @ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. The respondent had examined himself in support of his case whereas the appellant-State did not examine any witness. It was deposed by the respondent in his evidence that the entire acquired land was under cultivation and the respondent was taking crops like Udid, Mug and Soyabin. According to the respondent, the market price of the acquired land was at least Rs. 40,000/- per hectare at the time of acquisition. It was revealed from the evidence of Haribhau that he had purchased the land admeasuring 41 R from one Bhikaji for a consideration of Rs. 34,175/-. The reference Court, however, wrongly rejected the aforesaid sale transaction solely on the ground that the respondent claimant had not examined either the seller or the purchaser of the aforesaid transaction. The reference Court then considered the copy of the Index Register which showed the transaction between Kisan and Kundlik. It appears that the reference Court discarded this transaction also, on the ground that Kisan and Kundlik had not been examined by the respondent. Had these transaction executed by Bhikaji and Kisan been accepted by the 3 reference Court, the respondent would have received much more compensation for the acquired land. It, however, appears from the record that the reference Court did not consider the aforesaid transaction and relied on the fact that the respondent was taking Kharip crops and also Rubi crops like gram from the acquired land. Considering the entire evidence tendered by the respondent/ claimant on the record, the reference Court rightly enhanced the compensation and made it payable @ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. The approach of the reference Court, while considering the evidence and while computing the market value of the land, was just and reasonable. No fault can be found with the judgment passed by the reference Court. In fact, the enhancement of compensation is not to a great extent and the reference Court had merely enhanced the compensation by making it payable @ Rs. 30,000 per hectare) in stead of Rs. 25,000/- per hector. Since judgment passed by the reference Court is just and proper, it does not calls for any interference in this first appeal. The first appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE RMP