1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 1994 Dayaram Hari Patil, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agri. R/o. Bhagdars, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. and others ....Respondents. Shri. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. K.B. Choudhary, A.G.P. for State/respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 30th July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 13th of April 1993, passed by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon in Land Acquisition Petition No. 9 of 1992, dismissing the reference for enhancement of compensation in respect of lands acquired. 2 2. That, on 25.2.1988 the notification was issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 for acquisition of land i.e. Gat No. 50, admeasuring 49 R. situated at village Bhagdara, having assessment of Rs. 7.40, for construction of Minor Irrigation Tank at Bhagdara. The said notification was published finally in Gazette on 23.1.1989. Prior to this, the possession of the land was taken on 10.4.1991. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) passed the award dated 4.10.1991. 3. Being dissatisfied by this award of Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant filed Land Acquisition Petition No. 9 of 1992, which was tried and decided by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, by his common judgment and order dated 30th July 1992, passed in all companion acquisition cases. The appellant claimed the amount of compensation of Rs. 69,000/-, before the reference Court. The appellant examined himself as P.W. 1 and relied upon sale deed Exh. 17 in respect of survey No. 107-A-3 of village Bhagdara, Taluka Jamner. The appellant also relied upon Exh. 10, the 7/12 extract, in respect of this land. The learned Judge of the Reference Court recorded the finding that the land in question is a Jirayat land whereas the land in Exh. 17 was the Bagayat land. It has further recorded the finding that there is neither any affidavit nor any evidence to show that the land in question is Bagayat land. Similarly, finding is also recorded that there is no evidence to show that the lands are irrigated lands. The learned Judge of the Reference Court recorded the finding that there is no evidence on record to show that 3 lands included in Exh. 17 are adjacent to the lands under acquisition. In view of this, the reference for enhancement of the compensation has been rejected. 4. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 30th July 1992, passed by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon in Land Acquisition Reference No. 9 of 1992, the appellants have preferred this appeal. With the assistant of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence of the sole witness i.e. the appellant himself. I have also perused the sale deed at Exh. 17 and the 7/12 extract at Exh. 10 in respect of the property under acquisition. Shri. P.R. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the land under acquisition is comparable with the land in sale deed, Exh. 17, which is in respect of survey Nos. 106, 150 and 107-A-3 of village Bhagdara, taluka Jamner and therefore, the reference Court ought to have relied upon the said sale deed and should have awarded the market price of Rs.40,000/- per R. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the claimant himself has stated that as per the 7/12 extract of the suit lands, he had raised a Jirayat crop in the year 1993. As against this, the land in Exh. 17 is the Bagayat land and there is a well. The claimant further stated that he has not filed any evidence on record to show that the land in question is adjacent to the land in Exh. 17. It was further stated by the claimant that there is no well in his land. According to the learned A.G.P., in view of the entire evidence of claimant himself, the trial Court has rightly 4 recorded the finding that the land under acquisition is not comparable with the land in Exh. 17. 5. I have gone through the evidence of P.W. 1 claimant. There is nothing in the examination-in-chief of the claimant to compare his land with land in Exh. 17. He admitted in cross examination that from 7/12 extract, it was apparent that he raised Jirayat crop. The claimant further admitted that the land shown in Exh. 17 is Bagayat land. He further stated that there is no well in his land and that the sale deed Exh. 17 shows the well in the land. He further admitted that he has not filed any evidence on record to show that his land was adjacent to the land shown in Exh. 17. Except oral evidence of P.W. 1 and 7/12 extract at Exh. 10, there is no evidence on record by the appellants to compare his lands with the land in Exh. 17. On the contrary, the distinguishing features which the claimant has pointed out, clearly disentitled him for the market value shown in Exh. 17. In view of this, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the sale deed at Exh. 17, dated 11.10.1983 was relied upon in the other references from the same village which were Land Acquisition References Nos. 1/92, 2/92, 3/92 and 4/92 and on that basis, an amount of Rs. 53,333/- was granted for Bagayat land and Rs.26,666/- was granted 5 for Jirayat land. It was submitted that Exh. 17, in the instant case, was the same sale deed at Exh. 12/1 in the aforesaid references in which the judgment was delivered on 2.9.1992. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court, delivered in Civil Appeal Nos. 4163 and 4105 of 2009 dated 8th of July 2009, it was contended that the appellant should have been awarded the compensation at the very same rate and the judgment delivered in the aforesaid references was admissible in evidence. 7. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Apex Court. There can be no doubt about the proposition, that the judgment of a Court in land acquisition case, determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of acquired land, even though not inter-party was admissible in evidence, in subsequent case, either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon the award statement from the record of the Land Acquisition Officer to show that the lands are covered by the said notification and those are in the vicinity. The Apex Court has, however, further held that for a judgment relating to a value of land to be admitted in evidence as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of that same Court. Apart from this, it has further been held that a person relying upon such judgment must prove all the requirements by adducing the evidence aliunde and that due regard being given to all other attendant facts and 6 circumstances, it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. In the present case, in the first instance, the judgment in the aforesaid reference cases were not produced before the Reference Court nor any evidence is adduced to establish that Exh. 17 could furnish a basis for determining the market value. The said judgment is, therefore, of no help to the appellants and the appellants have failed to establish their case for enhancement. 8. During the course of hearing of these matters, learned counsel for the appellants have filed Civil Application St. No. 15895 of 2009 for grant of permission to produce the additional evidence by placing on record the copy of common judgment and order dated 2.9.1992 delivered by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon in MCA No. 1 of 1992, 2 of 1992, 3 of 1992 and 4 of 1992 and relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in (2008) 12 SCC Eastern Equipment and Sales Ltd. Vs. ING Yashkumar Khanna relied upon (2008) 8 SCC 511, North Eastern Railway Administration Vs. Bhagwandas. The learned counsel urged that the Apex Court has held that there may well be cases where even though the Court finds it able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence "to enable to pronounce the judgment", it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. No doubt, it is the discretion of the Court. However, in the present case, no case is made 7 out under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking additional evidence. The appellant has failed to produce any material on record and now cannot seek the permission of the Court to reopen the case and direct the trial Court to conduct the trial and to proceed afresh. 7. In view of above, there is no substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/fa196.94