1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2794 OF 2011 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Manjara Project, Osmanabad APPELLANTS VERSUS Shankar Ramchandra Partale, Age-Adult, Ocu-Agriculturist, R/o.Narangwadi, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad RESPONDENT Mrs.V.A.Shinde, learned A.G.P. for State. Mr.A.V.Indrale Patil, learned counsel for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/11/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal, the appellant/State has questioned the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed by the Joint Civil Judge, S.D.Omerga in L.A.R.No.236/2008 (Old No. 52/2002), by which award, the claim of the respondent was partly allowed and the respondent was held as entitled to compensation @ 22,000/- per acre with the requisite benefits as entitled under the 2 provisions of The Land Acquisition Act. 2. Heard learned A.G.P. for State. Issue notice to respondent. Shri.A.V.Indra Patil accepts notice for respondent. 3. Admit. Heard finally by consent at this stage. 4. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in this appeal can be summarized as : Respondent/original claimant is the owner of land Survey No. 189/2 admeasuring 24R, situated at village Narangwadi, Tal.Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. This land was acquired by the appellant on the request of Executive Engineer rehabilitation Integrated Unit. It appears that acquiring body took possession of the land on 22/08/1995. Notifications u/s. 4 and 6 were simultaneously published on 21/04/1997. It appears that the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice u/s.9(3)(4) of The Act and called upon the claimant/respondent, to which the respondent had filed his written statement claiming compensation @ 25,0000/- per R. He had submitted certain sale agreements alongwith his written statement. It appears that the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award for the land acquired in the sum of Rs.5,280/-, which amount was accepted under protest and the reference u/s. 18 of The Land Acquisition Act, was referred to The District Court, Osmanabad. 3 5. During the course of submissions, it is urged across the bar that 3 sale instances were filed before the Reference Court by the respondent showing that the land adjacent to the land acquired was purchased @ Rs.851/- per Sq.ft. and Rs.281/- per sq.ft. Considering this aspect, it is urged that the sale instances quoted at the behest of respondent/original claimant, not to be considered as those lands were non agricultural lands. Considering the evidence lead, the Reference Court has granted the compensation @ Rs. 22,000/- per acre, which comes to Rs.13,200/- According to the learned A.G.P., the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is exorbitant, excessive, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 6. Considering the submissions across the bar, one fact is clear that the land is acquired by the appellant for the rehabilitation purpose. It clearly indicates that the use of the land is for non- agricultural purpose. 7. On calculation of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, it comes to 85 paisa per sq.ft., which is very meager amount. Admittedly, the respondent has not filed any appeal for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Reference Court. Considering the fact that the value of the land and the purpose for which the land was acquired, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is so meagre and it can not be termed as excessive or exorbitant from any 4 angle. Considering this aspect, the appeal filed by the State, questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and award impugned, sans any merit. In the light of this, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. As the appeal is dismissed, CA No.9763/2010 does not survive, hence dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV.2011/fa2794-11