1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.251 OF 1993 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works, Nanded. Appellants Versus 1 Uttamrao s/o Shankarrao Yevale, age: 20 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Pimparkhed, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded. 2 Tukaram s/o Shankarrao Wakode, age: 52 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Pimperkhed, Tq.Hadgaon, District Nanded. Respondents Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for appellants. Mrs.S.G.Chincholkar , advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29th August, 2009. JUDGMENT.: 1 This is an appeal by the State raising challenge to the award dated 19.11.1986, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference No. 11 of 1984. 2 Land belonging to claimants – respondents herein came to be acquired for Kayadu Branch Irrigation Project, Pimparkhed. Land 2 acquired is out of S.Nos.68/A and 68/B admeasuring 2 hectares 73 ares, situate at village Pimparkhed, Tq.Hadgaon, District Nanded. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17.09.1981. After following procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer determined value of the land @ Rs. 7500/- per hectare payable to the claimants. 3 The claimants, being aggrieved by the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of acquired land, tendered Reference Application seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation payable in respect of acquired land. Claimants claimed @ Rs.10,000/- per acre towards market value of the acquired land. According to the claimants, land acquired is of a superior quality and considering quality of land as well as considering relevant circumstances i.e. availability of irrigation facility, they are entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation. 4 In order to substantiate their claim, claimants placed reliance on sale instances dated 02.04.1980 and 12.05.1982. Considering the evidence led by the claimants, Reference Court found that price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of acquired land is inadequate and as such, the Reference Court, while passing award, directed the State to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.6000/- per acre along with statutory benefits, such as interest and solatium. The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is subjected to challenge in this First Appeal. 3 5 It is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State that the valuation arrived at by the Reference Court is exorbitant and there is no sufficient evidence placed on record by the claimants to support their contention as regards market price of acquired property. It is also contended by appellant-State that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered all relevant circumstances and considering the sale instances collected by the Land Acquisition Officer, on which reliance is placed, the Land Acquisition Officer has reached correct valuation of the property. 6 I have perused the judgment passed by the Reference Court and also perused the record and proceedings. 7 The claimants have placed reliance on sale instance dated 02.04.1980 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 1 hectare 79 ares. The sale deed came to be executed by one Dattatraya in favour of Kanbarao and consideration amount paid is shown to be Rs.25,000/-. Another sale deed placed on record is dated 12.05.1982 executed by one Gunarao Ramrao Naik in favour of Patingrao Shamrao Maske for consideration of RS.17,000/- and the land alienated is to the extent of 1 hectare 1 are. So far as sale deed dated 02.04.1980 is concerned, same is pre-notification sale. Section 4 notification, in the instant matter, was published on 17.09.1981. The second sale instance is dated 12.05.1982 i.e. just six months after issuance of Section 4 notification. Considering both the sale instances, it appears that market price prevalent on the date of Section 4 notification appears to be Rs.6400/- per acre. The Reference Court has directed enhancement in the amount of compensation 4 payable to the claimants to the extent of Rs.3000/- per acre. Thus, the Reference Court has determined market value of the acquired property at Rs.6000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer had reached the conclusion that the market price of the acquired land is Rs.3000/- per acre. Considering the fact that enhancement, that has been awarded by the Reference Court, is quite meager and considering evidence placed on record by the claimants, it does transpire that the view adopted by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or unsustainable. Although sale instance dated 12.05.1982 is post notification sale i.e. six months after issuance of Section 4 notification, however, there is no evidence placed on record by appellant-State that there was hike in the prices of agricultural properties after issuance of Section 4 Notification. The fact remains that sale instance dated 02.04.1980, which is a pre-notification sale, also denotes the same market price. 8 Considering all the relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that the view adopted by Reference Court is reasonable, proper and needs no interference. Appeal is devoid of substance. 9 In the result, appeal stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/fa25193