1 F. A. No. 844/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus 1. Sitaram Tapiram Patil and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 845 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Amruti Trambak Patil .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 846 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Raghunath Vithoba Patil .. Respondent 2 F. A. No. 844/2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 847 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Sumanbai W/o Raghunath Patil .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 851 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Dashrath Sonaji Patil .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Bhikari Chavdas Jadhav (Died L.R.s) Pandurang Chindu Jadhav and others .. Respondents WITH 3 F. A. No. 844/2006 FIRST APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Yashwant S/o Kadu Patil .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Bhikari Chavdas Jadhav and others .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 855 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another .. Appellants Versus Bhaskar Kadu Patil .. Respondent Shri K. M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondents/State in all matters. Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondents in all matters. 4 F. A. No. 844/2006 CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent matters are taken on board for final hearing. 2. These appeals are preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award dated 22nd February, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in land acquisition references. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification U/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 21st August, 1997 for acquiring respondents/original claimants land from village Shingayat, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon, for Waghur Project. After following due process of law Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 18th August, 2000. 4. Being aggrieved by the award dated 18th August, 2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondents/original claimants preferred Reference U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In those references, the Reference Court passed common judgment and award dated 25th February, 5 F. A. No. 844/2006 2005 and awarded enhanced compensation in respect of Bagayat land at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs only) per hector and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) per hector for Jirayat land. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of appellant submit that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents/original claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land. He submits that the Reference Court has not properly considered the sale deed dated 13.08.1997 of 40R land sold for Rs. 1,02,000/- and sale deed dated 23.05.1996 of 40R land. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Kale appearing on behalf of respondents/original claimants submit that from the same project other first appeals bearing First Appeal No. 628/2005 and connected appeals are decided by this Court (Coram : Naresh H. Patil and K. K. Tated, JJ.) by judgment and award dated 12th October, 2010 and dismissed the appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra. He also relied on the reported judgment in the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer, (III) Jalgaon and another Vs. Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane reported in 2009(4) Mh. L. J. page 308. In both 6 F. A. No. 844/2006 these matters lands were acquired for same project by same notification U/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer also awarded compensation by common award dated 18th August, 2000. 7. I have gone through the Judgment dated 12 th October, 2010 in First Appeal No. 628 of 2005 and connected matters. It is admitted fact that in that case the claimant’s lands were acquired for the same project, for which the land in this case has been acquired. Therefore, it is just and proper to hold that the claimants in the present case on the basis of parity entitled to same compensation as held in First Appeal No. 628 of 2005 by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court in the matter of Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007(2) All M.R. 316 held that if lands are acquired for the same project then claimants are entitled to compensation at the same rate on the ground of parity. Head Note A reads as under: “A Land Acquisition Act(1894),Ss 4(1), 18- Acquisition of land-Claim of compensation-Parity-Lands situated in same village, acquired for same purpose under same notification – Claimants are entitled to compensation at the same 7 F. A. No. 844/2006 rate on ground of parity.” 8. The Apex Court in the matter of Bhim Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another reported in 2003 AIR SCW, 5188 held that best method for fixing market value of acquired land would be to look at earlier Judgments and Awards and not sale instances. Head Note “A” reads as under: “(A)land Acquisition Act (1 of 1984),S.23- Compensation-Determination of, on basis of earlier judgments-Plea that High Court erred in not taking sale instances into account while fixing compensation- Compensation already fixed by High Court in earlier proceedings and Supreme Court in one such proceeding has already approved rate fixed-Best method would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards and not sale instances-High Court can not be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments.” 9. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the appellant is not disputing the fact that in both these cases lands were acquired for the same project. The reference Court while considering enhanced compensation relied on the same sale instances and State of Maharashtra has not preferred appeals 8 F. A. No. 844/2006 against the Judgment and award in First Appeal No. 628 of 2005 and connected matters, decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 12 th October, 2010. 10. Therefore, considering facts of the present case and Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - original claimants in First Appeal No. 628 of 2005 and connected matters, I hold that the appellant-State of Maharashtra has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award dated 22nd February, 2005 passed by the Reference Court. 11. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the present appeals and the same are dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. [K. K. TATED, J.] bsb/Dec. 10