1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1311/2009. (Sunder Shankarrao Tapse Vs. State of Mah. & Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th January, 2010. ... 1) Heard Mr. Bhosale learned Counsel for the original claimant/landholder and learned AGP Shri DV Tele. 2) 25 R. of the agricultural field of the appellant was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs.460/- per R. The claimant felt that it should have been nearly Rs. 1300/- per R. The sale instances produced by the claimant before the learned Judge are appreciated and rather rightly appreciated, whereby the learned Judge arrived to hold that reasonable compensation to the claimant should have been Rs.1300/- per R. 3) The contention that the field of the claimant was irrigated, is turned down by the learned Land Acquisition Officer, and accepted by the learned Reference Court by assigning reasons in paragraph 11 of the Judgment, which does not 2 warrant for any interference. 4) The contention that the land is situate at the bank of river or a small canal, though repeatedly canvassed, does not find favour with any facility for fetching water made available to the claimant, as its reference is not surfacing in the revenue record and no evidence as to remittance of necessary charges to the department is adduced. The learned Reference Court, in the fact situation, was just in awarding Rs. 1300/- as a price of the agricultural field of the claimant with consequential statutory benefits. 5) First Appeal lacks merit, it is dismissed (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa1311.09