(1) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.27 OF 1995. Shivaji S/o Hanumanta Sirame, Aged : 38 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Hadoli (Jahagir), Tq. Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Janata Market, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. .. Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 1995. Bhoju S/o Sakharam Rathod, Aged : 48 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o Hadoli (Jahagir), Tq. Kandhar, District : Nanded. ..Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Janata Market, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. ..Respondents. (2) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 1995. Madhukar S/o Hanumanta Sirame, Aged : 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Hadoli (Jahagir), Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. .. Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Janata Market, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. .. Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 1995. Mohan S/o Hanumanta Sirame, Aged : 43 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o Hadoli, Tq. Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Janata Market, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. .. Respondents. (3) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.31 OF 1995. Kishan S/o Hanumanta Sirame, Aged : 58 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Hadoli (Jahagir), Tq. Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Janata Market, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. .. Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.33 OF 1995. Shivram S/o Mansing Pawar, Aged : 53 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o Hadoli (Jahagir), Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. .. Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Janata Market, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. .. Respondents. (4) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.34 OF 1995. Tukaram S/o Namdev Shirame, Aged : 33 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Hadoli (Jahagir), Tq. Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Janata Market, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. .. Respondents. Advocate for the appellants:- Mr. S.C. Yerammwar, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the appellants in all the First Appeals AGP for the Respondents-State Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (In F.A. Nos. 27 of 1995; 28 of 1995; 29 of 1995 & 30 of 1995) Mr. N.R. Shaikh, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (In F.A.Nos. 31 of 1995; 33 of 1995 & 34 of 1995). .... CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. Date: 15th, September, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. All these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment. (5) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. 2. The appeals are filed against the judgments and awards passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.244/1991, 231/1991, 85/1992, 243/1991, 229/1991, 249/1991 & 230/1991. The appellants had filed the Land Acquisition References challenging the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was passed in Government Gazette in 1986. The lands in question were sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a percolation tank at village Hadoli Jahagir. It was proposed that the lands of the appellants admeasuring in the range of 40 R to 80 R were to be acquired. After due inquiry the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs.8400/- per hectare but as said above the appellants challenged the Award and demanded Rs. 25,000/- per hectare. 3. The respondents opposed the references on various grounds and pursuant to the pleadings of the parties the learned Judge of the lower Court framed certain issues. He allowed the parties to lead the evidence and then came to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per hectare. This assessment of the market value of the suit lands by the learned Judge of the lower Court has been challenged in this (6) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. appeal. 4. The questions that arise for my consideration in these appeals are: (i)whether the amount of compensation awarded, is inadequate ? (ii)If the answer is in affirmative, to what extent? 5. In order to prove the market value of the lands in question prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, two sale instances have come on record. (i) produced and proved by the appellants and (ii) produced by the respondent. The sale instance produced by the appellants is a certified copy of the sale deed Exh. 20. It shows that land survey No.46 to the extent of 47 R was sold by three persons by name Amrutrao, Raghoba and Jankiram to one Jalba s/o Kamaji on 17th February, 1983 for Rs.10,000/-. The appellants recorded statement of one of the vendors viz. Jankiram who proved this sale instance. On perusal of his statement, it is seen that though the sale deed showed that the land admeasuring 47 R was sold for Rs.10,000, the vendor was trying to suggest that the prevailing market price of the land was about Rs.30,000/- per acre. This part of deposition was in fact inadmissible in evidence, for it squarely went (7) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. against the contents of the document and, therefore, hit by Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The learned Judge of the trial Court and the Advocates appearing for the parties probably were blissfully unaware of this aspect of the deposition. 6. In any case, the sale instances on record showed that the market value of the land in question should have been in the range of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per Hectare. 7. As against this, the respondent/State brought on record copy of another sale deed which is at Exh. 27. This sale deed is of 23rd January, 1985. The vendor Hari sold 40 R land from land survey No.143 to one Kishan for a price of Rs.3,000/-. The respondent/State thus indicated that the market value of the land in question could be in the range of Rs.3000/- per acre, which is about Rs.8,000/- per hectare. They tried to justify the offered amount on the basis of this sale instance. 8. The learned Judge of the lower Court, however, rejected the respondent's contention and took into account the sale instance produced by the appellants. He opined that the market value of the lands in question was Rs.20,000/- per hectare. The question is whether this assessment is correct? The answer is in affirmative. (8) F.A. NOS.27,28,2930,31,33 & 34 OF 1995. 9. As said above, the appellants and the vendor of the sale instance Exh.20 orally asserted that the market value of the lands of their village in those days was in the range of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre, but the appellants could not produce any documentary evidence for supporting this contention. As said above, they brought on record the sale instance Exh.20. I am not inclined to hold that the market value of the lands in question could have been more than Rs.20,000/- per hectare. The assessment of the market value made by the learned Judge of the trial Court is not incorrect. All these appeals should, therefore, fail. All the appeals are dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp