1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH FIRST APPEAL NO.76 OF 1995 1. Fatema Kasam s/o Noor Mohmmad, age major, Occu. household, R/o. Parbhani. 2. Mohd. Ismail s/o. Noor Mohmmad, age major, occu. business, R/o. as above. 3. Mohd. Iqbal s/o. Noor Mohmmad, age major occu. business, R/o. as above. - - - Appellants [ Orig. claimants ] versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M. K. V. Parbhani. - - - - Respondents Appellant No.1 deleted as per Court's Order dated 17-1-2003. Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellants Nos.2 and 3. Shri B. V. Wagh, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Reserved for orders on : 5th November 2009 Pronounced on : 13th November 2009 2 PER COURT: 1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short] is directed against judgment and award dated 11-10-1994 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in Land Acquisition Reference No. 603 of 1991 for enhanced compensation @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft. as against impugned award allowing enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. only. . However, from the record it is seen that before the Reference Court, submissions were made for enhanced compensation of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. and, therefore, during the course of final hearing of the second appeal before this Court, the claim urged by appellant is at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. 2. The material facts can be briefly stated as under :- The respondent State of Maharashtra vide Notification under Section 4 of the said Act published on 10-2-1983 acquired 3 gunthas of land belonging to the appellants out of survey No. 1/3 situated within the municipal limits of Sailu, taluka Sailu, district 3 Parbhani. Thereafter, notice under section 9 of the said Act was issued. The appellants by filed their objection before the Special Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation per sq. ft. for the land under acquisition situated within the municipal limits of township of Sailu having residential potentiality. It was also urged that adjacent land was sold at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. According to the appellants, prevalent market price of the land was Rs.30,000/- for 3 gunthas at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. Appellants also claimed Rs.50,000/- for well which was valued by the learned Reference Court for Rs.40,000/-. The compensation for the well is not disputed in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the award mainly on the ground that the learned Reference Court did not consider sale deeds of the relevant period and other evidence laid by them and also the award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 56 of 1987 despite the fact that the land in question has residential potentiality. 3. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused record and proceedings of Land Acquisition Reference No. 603 of 1991. Learned Counsel for the appellants took me through the impugned award of learned Reference Court dated 11-10-1994. It is seen that there are certain observations and also finding recorded in favour of 4 the appellants. For determination of the market value of the land, the date of Notification under section 4 of the said Act was taken as basis and it was further observed that the land in question was ready for non residential use. At the time of the acquisition, it was mentioned that the land is shown as Jirayat land yielding kharif crop. The learned Reference Court also accepted that the land in question is situated in town Sailu within municipal limits. The sale deed Exhibit 16 relied upon by the appellant was in respect of house admeasuring 400 sq.ft. and was sold by one Basantabai to Digambar Laxmanrao for Rs.8,000/- on 25-10-1982, which is prior to the present Notification published on 10-2-1983. 4. The learned Reference Court also referred to an Award passed in L. A. R. No. 56/87, relied upon by the appellants which was allowed for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq. ft. But the same rate was not considered by the learned Reference Court as it was challenged in appeal, which is subject matter in L.A.R. No. 56/87 is also from the same survey No. 1/3 Mouje Sailu and it was acquired for primary school where the school is constructed. Present land under acquisition was acquired for ring road. As such, the claim at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq. ft. of the appellants even was not considered. It was further observed 5 that claim of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. is exaggerated for want of satisfactory evidence. So, learned Reference Court passed an Award at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. 5. So far the valuation of well in question, it was properly valued for Rs.40,000/- and there is no argument on this point before this Court. Thus, it is seen that only dispute is regarding the assessment of market value of the land in question as per its potentiality at the relevant time. I have gone through the impugned award. It is mentined that the Notification was issued and published on 10-2-1983. The land acquired is 3000 sq.ft. only and the learned Reference Court has valued the said land at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. more than the double what was found in the original award. Accordingly, solatium of 30 per cent was also paid on the enhanced value together with usual interest, etc. and difference was allowed for payment to the appellants /claimants to the extent of Rs.1,19,161/- in total as against the acquisition of 3 acres of land. It is also found that the said land was earlier used for non residential purpose as the same was purchased in the year 1972 by his father and there was Ginning factory in the said land. As such, it was never under cultivation and was acquired for the ring road purpose. Learned Reference Court in para 17 of the 6 impugned award observed that the appellants claim at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. is certainly exaggerated and no satisfactory evidence was laid to accept that claim. However, considering its potentiality and future prospects, the market value of the land in question was determined at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. The impugned award was passed giving answers to all issues raised by both the parties and also with regard to earlier Reference decided numbered as L. A. R. No. 56/87. It is the land reserved for construction of primary school. The said land also is a part of the same survey number belonging to the appellants and the said award was passed at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq. ft. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants Mrs. Kulkarni admitted that at the relevant time the appeal was pending before this Court against the award pased in L.A.R. No. 56/87 and, therefore, it was not considered for the present acquisition. There is no evidence on record that the same award was upheld in the appeal. It is a separate Notification and acquisition was for different purpose. Each case has to be decided on its own merit and the evidence. Thus, upon consideration of the record and after going through the impugned award as mentioned above, award for enhancement at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. calls for no 7 interference for additional compensation. As such, no case is made out. Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) pnk/fa7695