1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. F.A.NO.868 OF 2009 State of Mah. and anr. . .. .vs.. Shri Pramod Vinayakrao Kene. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 6th August 2009. 1. Heard Mr.Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for the appellant/State. 2. This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the reference court in L.A.C.No.52 of 2004. The Government of Maharashtra had decided to acquire the land for construction of main canal of Jam River Project. The notification under Section 4 of the L.A.Act was issued in the year 1998. The Government had acquired survey No.421 admeasuring 0.55 hect. and survey No.441 admeasuring 0.42 hect. The land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs.43,426/- for acquisition of survey No.421 and 2 compensation of Rs.32,637/- for acquisition of survey No.441. The claimant/owner, therefore, felt aggrieved and sought reference to the civil court. The claimant tendered an evidence before the reference court and he had examined one Ravikant in the matter. This Ravikant had sold his land at the rate of Rs.1,67,500/- per hectare on 6/5/1996. Relying on the sale instance, the learned judge of the trial court allowed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation granted by the reference court is too excessive and is not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence. He contends that in fact there was no evidence to say that the acquired land and the land in the sale instance were of the same quality. He submits that Ravikant can be said to be an interested witness and his evidence should not have been relied. This is the only ground that is urged before me. 4. Ravikant is a person who had sold his land and whose sale instance has been considered by the court below. It is much prior to the date of notification. Although Ravikant belongs to same village it cannot be 3 said that he was the person interested. He has stated that both the lands are of same quality. There was no reason for the learned judge of the trial court not to rely on his evidence particularly when the appellant/ State did not tender any evidence in rebuttal in the case. I do not see any perversity in the evidence as is contended. The learned judge of the trial court has taken into consideration the sale instance in a proper perspective and there is proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed. JUDGE. chute