1 fa305 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.305 OF 1993 Ramchandra Krishna Shete ...Appellant vs. The Collector, Sangli ...Respondent Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the appellant Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 1, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the earlier date. As time was sought by the learned counsel for the appellant to take instructions, Judgment was not delivered. Today, none appears for the appellant. 2 The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 20 th May 1988 passed by the Reference Court in a reference under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 3rd November 1971. The acquired land is situated at Village Tasgaon, District Sangli. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by Award dated 31 st March 1975 offered the market value of Rs.4,000/- per acre. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court has granted enhancement in market value by fixing the rate of Rs.200/- per guntha. The Reference Court also granted interest under section 23(1-A) of the said Act. 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the 2 fa305 appellant-claimant in support of plea for enhancement is that the sale instances which are relied upon by the appellant indicate that the market value was very much higher than Rs.200/- per guntha. He submitted that this is a case where market value ought to have been fixed on par with sale instances relied upon by the appellant to discharge the burden to prove that the amount offered by the Award under section 11 was inadequate. The learned A.G.P submitted that in fact there is no legal evidence adduced by the appellant. He submitted that by no stretch of imagination the appellant was entitled to interest under section 23 (1-A) of the said Act as the date of award under section 11 of the said Act is prior to 30 th April 1982. He submitted that this was the fit case to exercise power under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and to set aside that part of the Award. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Perusal of the Judgment of the Reference Court shows that the sale instances are of sale deeds dated 14 th May 1975, 9 th April 1976, 1 st October 1975, 30 th April 1975 and 5 th January 1975. There is also a reference to a sale instance of 11th September 1971 which is closest to the relevant date. However, there is absolutely no evidence of comparatibility of the land subject matter of the said sale instance. As far as fixation of market value is concerned, it appears that the Reference Court has not specifically accepted any particular instance as a comparable sale instance. The relevant part of the impugned Judgment reads thus : 5...Taking into consideration all these things brought on record in my opinion the price fixed by the land acquisition officer at 3 fa305 the rate of Rs.5000/- per acre i.e.Rs.125/- per guntha is too low and meager one. In my opinion fixing of price at the rate of Rs. 200/- per guntha will meet the ends of justice. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I hold that the market price would be determined at the rate of Rs.200/- per guntha. After deducting the amount of Rs.5700/- granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6700/-... 5 The finding of the market value is not based on any legal evidence. Thus, suffice it say that no case is made out for grant of further enhancement in market value. 6 As stated earlier, notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 3 rd November 1971 and Award was made under section 11 on 31 st March 1975. The settled law is if the Award under section 11 is made prior to 30 th April 1982, the claimant is not entitled to statutory benefit under section 23 (1-A) of the said Act. Thus, this is a fit case where that part of the Award granting interest under section 23(1-A) will have to be quashed and set aside by exercising power under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the said Code. 7 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Appeal is dismissed. ii)That part of the impugned Judgment and Award which grants interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 3 rd November 1971 to 15 th March 1997 is quashed and set aside in exercise of power under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the said Code. Accordingly, the interest 4 fa305 amount under section 28 of the said Act shall be payable only on the components of enhanced market value and solatium amount under section 23(2) of the said Act. iii)There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE