1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2010 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabai 2. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Osmanabad Appellants V E R S U S Alam s/o Shekhal Shaikh, Aged 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Ghugu, Taluka and District Osmanabad Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2010 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabai 2. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Osmanabad Appellants V E R S U S Venka s/o Pandhari Mane, Aged 60 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Nitali, Taluka and District Osmanabad Respondent Mrs. S.D. Shelke, AGP for the appellants / State Respondents though served, absent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 14th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals can be disposed of by this common Judgment, because even the reference Court decided the references by a common Judgment. 2 2. These appeals are challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition References No. 64 of 2000 and 65 of 2000. 3. The respondents’ lands were acquired for Sub-mergence of Nitali Medium Tank, an irrigation project. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land of Acquisition Act for such acquisition was published on 6th October, 1994, and eventually, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed Award on 10th January, 1998. In First Appeal No. 169 of 2010 the respondent / claimant lost 35 gunthas land. In First Appeal No. 170 of 2010 the respondent / claimant lost not only 2 acres land but also a well, a mango tree and some other trees. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded about Rs.7,000/- per acre as compensation. The respondents / claimants since beginning claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per acre as compensation. Being aggrieved by the Award, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, they filed references, and having considered the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad held that the market value of the lands in questions at the relevant time was not less than Rs.30,000/- per acre. It is seen that the learned Judge of the reference Court increased the compensation for the lands acquired, but did not interfere in the compensation granted in respect of structures, well, trees etc. The question therefore is, whether the market price of the lands in question, on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was less than Rs.30,000/- per acre ? The learned Judge considered the evidence which the respondents / claimants brought before the Court. They examined witnesses to prove sale instance and they also placed on record copies of Judgments in related land acquisition references, in which the similarly placed claimants were awarded Rs.30,000/- per acre as compensation. The learned Judge of the reference Court accepted the claim of the 3 respondents / claimants to the extent of Rs.30,000/- per acre. It seems, this conclusion was drawn mainly because in similar cases, arising out of same land acquisition Award, similarly placed claimants were awarded Rs.30,000/- per acre as compensation. As against this, the appellants / respondents did not lead any evidence to dispute the claim. They should have adduced the evidence to show the market value of the lands in question, was less than Rs.30,000/- per acre. In absence of such step taken by the appellants, they cannot pursue this appeal meaningfully. The appeals should therefore fail. Both the appeals stand dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/fa/169/10