{1} fast541311.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.5413 OF 2011 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.5416 OF 2011 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.Atul R. Kale, advocate for appellant. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 03 rd August, 2011 PER COURT: 1 These are appeals raising exception to the judgment and award dated 19.09.2009, passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. Nos.644/1992 and 645/1992. {2} fast541311.odt 2 Lands belonging to the respondents – original claimants, out of Block Nos.48 and 54 to the extent of 41 ares and 85 ares respectively, situate at village Garsuli, Taluka and District Latur, were acquired by the State for construction of Minor Irrigation Tank at village Garsuli. Section 4 Notification was published on 16.02.1989 and after following procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10.01.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per are i.e. Rs.15,000/- per hectare. 3 The claimants, being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate applications for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of market value. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.75,000/- per hectare. 4 In order to substantiate their claims, claimants placed reliance on oral as well as documentary evidence. Considering the evidence placed on record by the claimants, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that market value of the acquired lands shall be @ Rs. 55,000/- per hectare for dry crop lands and @ Rs.65,000/- per hectare for irrigated lands. The claimants placed reliance on the judgment of the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.643/1992, where under, lands of different agriculturist from the same village i.e. Garsuli were acquired for the same project by the same acquiring body. It is stated that there is a time gap of only two months in the two stages of acquisition. The matter was contested up to this Court. The compensation in respect of acquired {3} fast541311.odt lands, in the near vicinity, was fixed @ Rs.55,000/- per hectare for dry crop land and @ Rs.65,000/- for irrigated land. 5 Considering the rate of compensation offered in respect of acquired lands in the near vicinity, the Reference Court was justified in directing compensation at the same rate to the claimants herein also. 6 A faint attempt is made to contest the matter on the ground that the applications tendered by the respective claimants were beyond prescribed period of limitation. It is stated that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10.01.1991 and the Reference Applications were tendered on 10.10.1992. The claimants received amount of compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer on 21.07.1991. There is no evidence placed on record by the acquiring body in respect of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act by the respective claimants. Admittedly, claimants were not present before the Land Acquisition Officer when the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award. The limitation for presenting application for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of market value, in accordance with provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is six months. A contention is raised by the appellant – acquiring body that the Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were tendered beyond the period of limitation. This contention do not deserve any consideration. 7 I have gone through the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and perused the relevant evidence, copies of which were made available by the learned Counsel for appellant-acquiring body. For {4} fast541311.odt the reasons recorded above, there is no substance in the appeal. Appeals are devoid of merit. 7 Appeals, therefore, stand dismissed. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/fast541311