ash 1 fa-675.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.675 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Smt. Gangubai Amby Bogir. .. Respondent -- Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. Shri P.N. Joshi for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned AGP for the Appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. The Appellant – State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 19th December, 1991 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik, in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) made at the instance of the Respondent. 2. It will be necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. The Respondent claimed to be the owner of the land bearing Gat No. 167 of village Hiswal Budruk, Taluka – Nandgaon, District – Nashik. Out of ash 2 fa-675.92 the said Gat No.167, the land admeasuring 10.5 Ares was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Act on 15th July, 1982. An Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11th November, 1982 by which the market value of the acquired land was offered at Rs.6,200/- per Hectare. In the Reference Application filed by the Respondent, the market value of the acquired land was claimed only at Rs.37,500/- per Hectare. It was contended that there was a Well on the acquired land and as a result of acquisition of the Well, out of the remaining land, an area of 3 Hectares which was a Bagayat land was converted into a Jirayat land as the Respondent was deprived of supply of water from the said Well to the acquired land. It was claimed that the market price of Jirayat land will be Rs.37,000/- per hectare. Compensation was claimed on account of injuriouws affection in respect of the remaining land admeasuring 3 Hectare for injurious affection. There are various other claims made regarding compensation on account of installation of oil engine, engine house, pipeline and electricity meter house, etc. 3. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Joint District Judge held that only an area of 80 Ares has been subjected to injurious affection due to loss of well. It was held that this area of 80 Ares was deprived of water supply from the well. The compensation on the said count in respect of the area of 80Ares was granted at Rs.18,750/- per Hectare and the market value of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs. ash 3 fa-675.92 37,500/- per Hectare. The market value of the land admeasuring 10.5 ares occupied by the well was fixed at Rs.18,750/- per Hectare. On the excess amount, the learned Judge granted interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 4. The learned AGP has taken the Court through the notes of evidence and other documents on record. It is submitted that there was no evidence was adduced as regards the market value of comparable land and the lands subject matter of the sale instance is far away from the acquired land. He submitted that there was no evidence to show that the area of 80 Ares was affected due to non-availability of the water from Well and that the compensation granted has no basis. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and award. He submitted that this was a case for seeking enhancement of the compensation but there was no appeal or Cross Appeal filed. He submitted that no interference is called for. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. The case made out by the Respondent was that out of the land remaining with him after acquisition, the area of 3 Hectares was affected as the said area was Bagayat land and it was converted into a Jirayat, as the Respondent was deprived of supply of water from the Well. On this aspect, it must be noted that in Paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge has noted ash 4 fa-675.92 the submission made by the learned District Government Pleader that out of total area of 11.61 Hectares of the land held by the Respondent, area of 10.80 Hectares was cultivated under said water and that the area under crops of onion and groundnuts can be hardly 80 Ares. That is how a finding has been rightly recorded that only an area of 80 Ares out of the remaining lands has been injuriously affected. 7. As far as the market value of the acquired land is concerned, the Respondent examined one Ramdas Ganpat Mahajan as a witness who stated that he was one of the purchasers of the land admeasuring 31 Gunthas on 12th February, 1982 for the sum of Rs.16,000/-. The said land was situated in the adjacent village. In the cross-examination, it was brought on record that the village Hiswal is at a distance of about 1 km from the acquired land. 8. Perusal of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment and award shows that the evidence of the said witness has been considered by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge observed that the sale instance cannot be kept out of consideration. The learned Judge noted that the said sale instance shows the market value of Rs.76,000/- per Hectare but the claim made by the Respondent was at Rs.37,500/- per Hectare. Accordingly, the compensation in respect of acquired land admeasuring 10.5 Ares was granted at the rate of Rs.37,500/- per Hectare. In absence of sale instances of the comparable land from the same village, the Court can always consider ash 5 fa-675.92 sale instances of comparable lands located in nearby villages. Therefore, market value of Rs.37,500/- per Hectare fixed by the Reference Court is reasonable. 9. After having found that the area of 80 Ares was injuriously affected, the learned Judge has not granted compensation at the market value determined by him but he has reduced that market value further to Rs. 18,750/- per Hectare and granted compensation at the said rate in respect of the said area of 80 Ares. 10. It is well settled that while determining the market value in accordance with Section 23 of the said Act, there is always some guess work. In the facts of the present case, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as well as the compensation fixed on account of injurious affection is arbitrary or unreasonable. 11. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )