FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.3009 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Shri Korde, learned A.G.P. in support of this appeal. 2 The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16th August, 2004 passed by the learned 7th Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Beed in LAR No.294 of 1999. The respondents’ land to the extent of 32 R was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “Act”). Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 24th September, 1992 and the award was made on 25th January, 1996. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.120/- per R as against the claim of the respondents for Rs.2000/- per R. Being aggrieved by this award, the respondents made reference under Section 18 of the Act. The respondents relied upon the sale instance at Exh.14 wherein P.W.2 Bhau Jagdhane had purchased 51 R land for Rs.50,000/- by registered sale deed dated 21st September, 1991 from one Bapurao Vidhate. The respondents also relied upon another sale instance at Exh.15 wherein P.W. 2 Bhau Jagdhane had purchased 40 R lands for Rs.50,000/- by registered sale deed dated 11th February, 1991 from one Mohan Vidhate. 3 The learned trial Judge considered the sale instances and found that they are in respect of the land situate at Pimpala, taluka Ashti and are irrigated lands. He also found that P.W.2 Bhau Jagdhane has land adjacent to the lands which were purchased under Exhs.14 and 15 and being adjacent to the land already possessed by P.W.2 Bhau, he might have paid more consideration. In para 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge recorded that the land under acquisition is from village Borwadi and the sale instances at Exhs.14 and 15, to some extent, support the contentions of the respondents and consequently, these sale instances cannot be rejected in toto. On that basis, the learned trial Judge held that respondents are entitled to compensation @ Rs.300/- per R as against Rs.120/- awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 4 Considering the extent of the land acquired namely, 32 R and the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for enhancing the compensation, I do not think that the learned trial Judge has awarded exorbitant compensation. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award also indicates that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.3840/- which was enhanced by the reference Court to Rs. 9,600/-. Considering the controversy raised in the appeal even otherwise, no case is made out for admitting the appeal. 5 It has been further brought to my notice that by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge has also decided LAR NO.295/1999. The State Government challenged the impugned judgment in this LAR by filing first appeal in this Court. The said appeal was dismissed on 5th September, 2009. 6 In the light of aforesaid position, without calling for the record and proceedings as per Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, I am of the opinion that no case is made out by the appellant for admitting the appeal. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 09.12.2009. PLK/*