1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1678 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Laxman s/o. Vithalrao More, Age 29 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the appellant/State. Shri. T.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1679 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Madan s/o. Sukhdeo Ubale, Age 30 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Pandharwadi, U/v. Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the appellant/State. Shri. T.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. 2 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1680 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Massu s/o. Girjappa Ubale, Died L.Rs. A. Namdeo s/o. Massu Ubale, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Khalwat Nimbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. B. Tatyasaheb s/o. Massu Ubale, Age 32 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Khalwat Nimbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. C. Baban s/o. Massu Ubale, Age 28 yrs., Occu. Agril, R/o. Khalwat Nimbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1682 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus 3 1. Bhagwan Sonaji Ambhure, Age 65 yrs., (Died, Deleted) 2. Pandurang Bhagwan Ambhure, Age 35 yrs., (Dismissed as PERSONAL Order dated 10.3.2010) 3. Govind s/o. Bhagwan Ambhure, Age 35 yrs., 4. Vithal Bhagwan Ambhure, Age 30 yrs., All Agriculturists by occupation and R/o. Khalwat-Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Kisan s/o. Bapu Pejgude, Died L.Rs. A. Rustum s/o. Kisan Pajgude, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agril., B. Samindrabai w/o. Kisan Pejgude, Age 60 yrs., Occu. Agril., Both R/o. Khalwat Nimgaon, Tq.. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. 4 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1685 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Kishan s/o. Asruba Ambhure, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Pandharwadi, U/v. Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1686 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Babu s/o. Yenka Pejgude, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Pandharwadi, U/v. Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. Shri. T.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent. 5 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Bhimrao s/o. Dagduba Kashid, Died L.Rs. A. Manohar s/o. Bhimrao Kashid, Age 47 yrs., Occu. Agril. & Service, (Dismissed as per order dt. 10.3.10) B. Kalyan s/o. Uttam Kashid, Age 27 yrs., Occu. Agril., C. Ashok s/o. Uttamrao Kashid, Age 24 yrs., Occu. Agril., D. Sakhubai w/o. Uttam Kashid, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agril., E. Sakharam s/o. Uttam Kashid, Age 12 yrs. Minor, U/g. of his mother Sakhubai w/o. Uttam Kashid, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agril., All R/o. Khalvat Limgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. 6 Versus 1. Atmaram s/o. Shrirang Mane, Age 32 yrs., 2. Kausalyabai w/o. Abhiman Mane, Both Agriculturists by occupation & R/o. Pandharwadi, U/v. Khalwat Limgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. Shri. T.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Ashruba Bapu Shelke, Age 60 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1691 OF 2009 7 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Namdeo s/o. Dadarao Kashid, Age 25 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Pandharwadi, U/v. Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. Shri. T.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus 1. Rambhau s/o. Bapu Pejgude, Died L.Rs. A. Samindrabai w/o. Rambhau Pejgude, (Dismissed as per order dt. 10.3.10) B. Satyabhamabai w/o. Gangaram Mane, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agri. R/o. Pandharayacchiwadi, Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. C. Wanarasabai w/o. Raosaheb Kharade, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Rui, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. 8 D. Sudamati Atmaram Mane, Age 30 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Pandharayacchiwadi, Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Laxman Tatyaba Ubale, Died L.Rs. A. Arjun Laxman Ubale, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Khalwat Nimgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. B. Bharat Laxman Ubale, Age 25 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Khalwat Nimgaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed ....Respondents. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. Shri. T.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1696 OF 2009 9 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Gangaram s/o. Baburao Mane, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Pandharwadi, U/v. Khalwat Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1695 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. Versus Bhanudas s/o. Chimaji Anbhule, Age 60 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Pandharwadi, U/v. Kalwat Nimgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ....Respondent. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellant. Shri. T.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATE : 4th May, 2010 10 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. Mr. S.D. Kaldate and Mr. T.B. Shinde. Admit the appeal. Finally disposed of. 2. The State feels aggrieved by the enhancement in the respective Land Acquisition References No. 951/88, 928/88, 931/88 to 936/88, 938/88 to 944/88, 945/88, 947/88, 948/88, 952/88, 954/88 and 1079/88. 3. The learned A.G.P. submits that the sale instances to which reference is given i.e. of 18.3.1975 at the rate of Rs. 16.5 per Sq. Mtr. for the notification under section 4 (1) is dated 24.3.1983, and proportionate increase of 10% made by the learned Judge is wrong. 4. There is no controversy that the house properties of the respective claimants were situated within the local limits of Pandharwadi, under village Khalwat Limgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, acquired by the Government for Majalgaon Reserviour under Jaikwadi Project in terms of above notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, published on 24.3.1983. The award is dated 10.12.1985. The award was not accepted by the claimants and they challenged the same by filing references. 5. Before the learned Judge, as could be seen, there were the sale deed, Exh. 56, at the rate of Rs. 22/- per Sq. Mtr. dated 18.3.1975. The 11 other sale deeds are at Exhs. 58, 22, 21. The sale deed at Exh. 21 is for a plot of land admeasuring 36 ft. x 26 ft. (90.33 Sq. Mtrs.). The value as per calculation was Rs. 22/- per Sq. Mtr. The sale deed dated 18.3.1975 was referred in the earlier land references being L.A.R. Nos. 481/1986 and 177/1987, where the claimants sought the enhancement at the rate of Rs. 50/- per Sq. Mtr., the learned Judge also consider the same. The learned Reference Court, in this matter, in spite of valuation indicated in the above referred sale deeds, reduced the price of the plot to Rs. 16.50 per Sq. Mtr. for the lands for the period of 1975 to 1983. The learned Judge, however, thought it reasonable and proper to presume the rational increase at the rate of 7% per annum and not 10% per annum. The learned Judge, on analysis of the evidence, reached to the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 28/- per Sq. Mtr. to the respective claimants. The learned Judge considered the measurement of respective plots and also structure thereon as to its intrinsic value. The learned A.G.P. fairly concedes, there is no controversy about the dimensions of the plots and the structure. 6. The chart furnished by the learned Judge in the award at internal page Nos. 23 and 24 could illustrate, the increase is Rs. 18,258/-, Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 14,672/-. It is, thus, apparent, the award by the learned Reference Court is not disproportionate to the sale instances produced. On meagre amounts, the houses of claimants were acquired, the claimants have became landless and were required to wander for 12 shelter. Award, in all the situation, cannot be said to be on higher pedestal, warranting any interference. Respective first appeals sans merit and are dismissed. No costs. 9. In view of dismissal of appeals, the civil applications, if any, do not survive and disposed of. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL J.] ssc/fa1678.09