1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2353 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for resp. nos. 1 to 10. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 16/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. The land of the claimants hav been acquired for the purpose of Kolsur Medium Project. The claimants’ lands were situated at Kolsur. The Award was passed in the year 1996. The claimants being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court awarded compensation for the land @ Rs. 35,000/- for 57 R., whereas the Special Land Acquisition Officer ( For short, ‘ S.L.A.O.’ ) had awarded compensation @ Rs. 21,000/- for 57 R. land. The S.L.A.O. has not awarded any compensation for the trees, well and the bund. The Reference Court awarded Rs. 23,000/- as compensation for the trees, Rs. 15,000/- for well and Rs. 12,000/- for bund. The appellant / State has challenged the said 2 Award in the present Appeal. 2. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submits that all the factors have been taken into consideration by the S.L.A.O. As the existence of tress itself was not proved, no question arises for granting any compensation for the tress, so also, the well is not mentioned in the Valuation report of the S.L.A.O. In such circumstances, the Reference Court committed an error in awarding compensation under these heads. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader further submitted that the compensation for the land is also exorbitantly enhanced to Rs. 35,000/- when the Reference Court observes that there is inconsistency in the sale deeds. 3. Mr. Nirmal, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Reference Court has properly considered all the aspects of the matter and has awarded the compensation amount. The Reference Court has not blindly accepted the Valuation Report. Taking into account the market value of the land, trees , well and bund, the Reference Court has awarded just and modest compensation. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the Judgment and the evidence supplied by the learned counsel for the respondent. 3 5. The perusal of 7/12 extract shows that the trees are mentioned in the 7/12 extracts, but the same have not been considered by the S.L.A.O. Even the Valuation Report submitted by the valuer shows the existence of the trees in the lands acquired. There is no counter evidence to that effect. In such circumstances, it can not be said that the Reference Court was unjustified in granting compensation towards the trees. Even the well is shown in the Valuation report and it also finds mention in the 7/12 extract. The entries in the same are made in the official course. By oral evidence also, the existence of trees, well and the bund has been proved. The modest amount of compensation has been awarded in this regard. More over, for the land which is acquired i.e. 57 R., the S.L.A.O. has awarded Rs. 21,000/-. The Reference Court has enhanced it to Rs. 35,000/- for 57 R. land relying on the sale deed. 6. Taking into account the aforesaid aspect, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper and no error is committed by the Reference Court while awarding compensation. 7. In light of the above, First Appeal is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/FA 2353.10