1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 3075 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through the Land Acquisition Officer ...Appellants Versus 1. Abdul Rahim s/o Abdul Hamid, Age 35 years, occ. Busiess adn agri R/o. Georai, District Beed 2. Abdul Razzak s/o Abdul Hamid, Age 30 years, R/o. As above ...Respondents ..... Mr. N.N. Jadhav, A.G.P. for the appellants Mr. Sunil G. Magre, advocate for respondent No.1 ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 10TH DECEMBER, 2009 JUGMENT :- 1 Heard Shri Jadhav, learned A.G.P. for the appellants and Shri Magre, learned counsel for respondent No.1 2 Admit. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 3 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2.5.2000, passed by the III Additional District Judge, at Beed in L.A.R. No. 492 of 1994. The appellants had acquired agricultural lands admeasuring 83 Are out of Gat No.200 situate within the local limits of village Takadgaon, Tq. Georai, District Beed, by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) on 8.10.1992. The land was acquired for the public purpose of extension of percolation tank of village Takadgaon. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 7.5.1994 and awarded compensation @ Rs.200/- per Are. 4 The respondents filed Reference under Section 18 of the Act contending, interalia, that the land was having facility of irrigation and market value of the acquired land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, was Rs.40,000/- per acre. 5 In support of the Reference, the respondents examined Abdul Rahim P.W.1 at Exh.14, who produced 7x12 extract of the acquired land at Exh.17. After considering the oral evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the acquired land was dry land. The respondents relied upon the sale instance at Exh.23 where under P.W. 2, Prabhakar and nine others have purchased 40 Are of land for Rs. 50,000/- on 15.10.2001. The rate comes to Rs.1250/- per Are. P.W.2 Prabhakar deposed that acquired land is at a distance of two 3 kilometers away from the land purchased by him. The learned trial Judge considered the sale instance at Exh.23 and held that the land was purchased for constructing residential building and therefore, would be more valuable, more particularly when it is situate within the limits of a Taluka place. He however, came to the conclusion that if the deduction is made to the extent of 15% and 25% on account of residential purpose and location in Taluka place respectively, from the value of the land in respect of sale deed at Exh.23, the value of the acquired lands will be worked out to Rs.312.00 per Are. Since the sale deed at Exh.23 was executed on 19.10.1990 and notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 8.10.1992, he held that if the addition is made @ 5% to 7% p.a. in the base value of the acquired land, market value of acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act would be Rs.345/- per R. He accordingly allowed the Reference. 6 The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 16,600/-, which was enhanced by the Reference court to Rs.28,635/-. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have perused the impugned order. Considering the quantum involved in the appeal, I thought it appropriate to decide the appeal finally at the stage of admission, without calling for record and proceeding of the case as per Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4 7 After hearing learned A.G.P. and after going through the impugned judgment and award, I am satisfied that the trial Judge has not awarded exorbitant compensation. The findings and the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge are based on the material on record. In view of this, no interference is called for. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall however, no order as to costs. *****