1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. First Appeal No. 708 of 2007 (State of Mah. & anr. Vs. Sau. Pushpabai Pandurang Katyaramal) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Rachana Wasnik, A. G. P. for the appellants. Ms. Varsha Wasu, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 20 th September, 2007 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this first appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and Award passed by the reference Court on 23rd June, 2007 in Land Acquisition Case No. 74/1991, whereby the compensation was enhanced and granted to the respondent @ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. A few facts giving rise to this first appeal are stated as under : The notification under Section 4 was issued by the State of Maharashtra on 15/8/1985 for acquisition of the land belonging to the respondent herein, for Upper Wardha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award and granted the compensation @ Rs. 11,800/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied by the grant of meager compensation, the respondent filed a reference 2 application before the Collector, Wardha, who, in turn, referred the matter to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha. The reference Court enhanced the compensation and granted it @ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. The only question that arises for consideration in this first appeal is, “Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and proper?” The respondent examined himself and also produced certain documentary evidence on the record. The respondent tendered the evidence to show that the land of the respondent was an irrigated land and the field was yielding all sorts of crops like Cotton, Tur, Hybrid Jawar and also was fetching an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per acre towards the income from the land. The respondent was, however, not able to produce any sale deed from the nearby vicinity as the State Government had banned the sale of properties in the adjoining area during the relevant time. Since the sale transactions were banned due to the Upper Wardha Project from the year 1975, no sale instance could be produced on record. The respondent, however, had placed two sale transactions of the year 1973 and 1974 on record by producing the copies of Index Register. The respondent had tendered the oral evidence to show that the lands sold by the 3 transactions of the year 1973 and 1974 were similar in quality and, therefore, land of the respondent, which was acquired in the year 1985, could be valued atleast at Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. The respondent further produced on record the judgment and award passed by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 75/1991, whereby the reference Court had granted the compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare to the claimants therein. It further appears that the land of the respondent herein and the claimants in the aforesaid land acquisition case, were part of the same survey number. The reference Court, therefore, rightly considered the Award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 75/1991 to hold that the market value of the land of the respondent was Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. The Court held that since the land of the respondent herein and the claimants in LA.C. No. 75/1991 were adjoining lands, it was believable that the quality of the land was the same and the respondent herein is entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. I see no fault in the approach of the reference Court in arriving at the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per hectare. In fact, the compensation made payable to the respondent is extremely just and reasonable. Therefore, the aforesaid point is 4 answered in affirmative and against the appellants. For the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal fails and hence, same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP