1 fa 634.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Tukaram Laxman Sherkar Died Through L.Rs. Murlidhar Tukaram and others .. Respondents Shri P. N. Kutti, A.G.P. for the Appellant/State. Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate h/f Shri R. V. Naiknaware, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28TH OCTOBER, 2015. PER COURT : . The present respondents being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short "S.L.A.O.") filed reference under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "L. A. Act"). The said reference is partly allowed. Aggrieved thereby the State has filed the present appeal. 2. Mr. Kutti, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, the Reference Court has considered the sale instances Exh. 34 and 37 and agreement of sale Exh. 33. The said sale instances can not be said to be exemplar sale instances. The said sale instances are in respect of another village. The 2 fa 634.03 said sale instances are in respect of small pieces of lands. Even much reliance has been placed on agreement of sale which is certainly not genuine document. The learned A. G. P. submits that, the lands under acquisition were agricultural lands and not developed plots. The S. L. A. O. after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per H. Initially when the reference was filed the claimant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per Acre. However, at the fag end the references were amended and compensation was claimed at Rs. 10/- per square feet and restricted to Rs. 07/- per square feet as court fees was paid on claim of Rs. 7/- per square feet. The learned A. G. P. submits that, lands under acquisition were never converted into N. A. plots. The evidence of Mr. Baraskar could not have been relied which was only a proposed lay out plan, as such it cannot be said that land under acquisition was a developed land. The learned A. G. P. submits that, even the the distance of the village of which the sale instances were relied was more than 7 to 8 K.Ms. The said sale instances could not have been considered while arriving at the valuation of the lands acquired. According to the learned A. G. P. while making deductions the same has not been properly made. Even if the land is considered to have non agricultural potentiality, the deductions of the area of land ought to be 55%. The learned A. G. P. relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Chandrashekhar (dead) by L.Rs. V/s. Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2012 (3) 3 fa 634.03 Mh. L. J. 8. The learned A. G. P. also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Nana Bal Patil @ Rane and another reported in 2013 (2) Mh. L. J. 747. 3. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants supports the award and submits that, in fact the evidence on record would suggest that, the market value of the plots at the relevant time was Rs. 10/- per square feet. The learned counsel submits that, the Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square feet. The plots under the lay out were proposed to be converted into non agricultural plots. Even the proposed lay out was also submitted. According to the learned counsel vide the subsequent notification also some other lands were acquired and the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square feet. The same was upheld by this Court in First Appeal No. 1213 of 2015 with connected appeals decided vide judgment dated 29th July, 2015. 4. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties, so also I have gone through the record and proceedings. 5. The sale instances relied are in respect of lands situated in village Ruibhar and Kajala. Whereas the agreement of sale relied in respect of the lands of the same village Deolali. 4 fa 634.03 6. The notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act has been issued on 10th July 1985. The purpose of the acquisition is for re- settlement. The said agreement of sale has been proved by examining the witnesses. The original agreement of sale is produced on record. The same is at Exh. 28. As per the said sale instance the rate would come to Rs. 6/- per square feet. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Even the other sale instances are at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square feet of adjoining villages. It has come in evidence that, the adjoining village is at the distance of 2 K.Ms. 7. The Court has also considered Exh. 38 i. e. the proposed lay out plan in respect of the land survey No. 124/2 and 126 part of village Deolali. It would show that, lands were having non agricultural potentiality. The expert who has prepared the plan has been examined. From the evidence, it would be seen that, lands left for the road, open space have been excluded and almost 40% of the amount has been deducted while awarding the compensation. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act is dated 10th July, 1985. Whereas the subsequent acquisition also for the resettlement from the same village is vide notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act dated 14th March, 1991. In the references filed by those persons whose lands were acquired vide notification dated 14th March, 1991, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square feet. The same has been upheld by this Court in 5 fa 634.03 First Appeal No. 1213 of 2015 with connected appeals. 8. The evidence led in the present reference was considered in the said references whose lands were acquired vide notification dated 14th March, 1991 and the same is upheld by this Court. In the present case the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square feet after deducting almost 40% of the land while computing the compensation amount. The Reference Court has relied on the evidence Exh. 28 which is in respect of sale transaction of the same village as that of the acquired land. So also the sale instances Exh. 33, 34 and 37 which are of adjoining villages. Even the proposed lay out has been considered and the Court has arrived at a reasonable conclusion. 9. Considering the above, the judgment passed by the Reference Court with regard to market value of the land acquired needs no interference. The possession has been taken after the notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act, as such, the claimants would be entitled for the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, for the first year at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of actual possession is taken and after lapse of one year at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum. In clause 4 of the operative order the said clarification is added. The First appeal accordingly is disposed of. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 15