1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 729 OF 1989 The Goraakshan Sanstha, Chalisgaon by its President, Sohanlal Ramdeoji Joshi .. APPELLANT VERSUS The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT ... Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate for the appellant Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the respondent /State CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15th November, 2010. PER COURT : The land of the appellant /Original claimant was acquired for scheme known as the Head Work Water Supply Scheme, Chalisgaon. The possession of the said land was taken by the respondent on 13th September, 1966. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17th July, 1969, and the Award came to be passed on 21st August, 1972, awarding compensation of Rs. 13,081.25 paise to the applicant in respect of its acquired land 2 bearing Survey No. 329/1 admeasuring 2 Acres, 8 Gunthas and 36 sq.feet. The claimant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation withdrew the said amount under protest and filed a reference bearing Land Acquisition Reference No. 30 of 1973. The Reference Court vide its Judgment and Award dated 23rd October, 1977, partly allowed the said reference and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. It awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 48,668.75 paise. The claimant being dissatisfied with the said amount awarded by the Reference Court has assailed the said Judgment and Award in the present Appeal. 2. Shri S.P. Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant canvassed following proposition :- i] The Reference Court has not considered the potentiality of the land i.e. it was in a developed area. ii] Along with the present land the other land bearing Survey No. 328/2 was also acquired. 3 The owners of the said land filed reference bearing Land Acquisition Reference No. 29 of 1973 and the Reference Court had awarded compensation at Rs. 1/- per Sq. feet. The present land was an adjacent land and was the subject matter of the same Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The lands acquired for the same projects have to be considered as one unit and the same compensation is required to be awarded. iii] The sale instances produced on record shows that in the year 1968 the transactions had taken place at Rs. 1.50/- per Sq. feet and the same amount ought to have been considered by the Reference Court, just because they were of smaller land the said sale-deed could not have been totally ignored. iv] The Reference Court has committed an error in not awarding an interest under Section 28 and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The possession was taken prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In such circumstances, the 4 claimant would be entitled for rental compensation from the date of possession till the issuance of Notification under Section 4. 3. Per contra, Mrs. R.K. Ladda, learned A.G.P. submitted as under :- i] The Reference Court has properly evaluated the evidence on record and has arrived at just conclusion. ii] The sale-deed of 1 Acre and 20 Gunthas land executed in favour of the employees of the State Bank of India shows that the rate was Rs. 20,000/- per acre and the Reference Court has properly considered the same. iii] Just because the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 1/- per Sq. feet to the adjacent land, the same cannot be ipso-facto considered for awarding compensation to the applicant, as there is nothing on record to show that the adjacent land and the present land in question are of same potentiality. 5 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the record and also arguments by the counsels. 5. It is trite law that when various lands are acquired for one project, then even if the lands are situated in different villages they are to be considered as a one unit, and the amount of compensation to be awarded has to be uniform and same. In the present case, for the adjacent land, the Reference Court had awarded compensation at Rs. 1/- per Sq.feet. There is nothing on record to show that the said Judgment of the Reference Court was assailed by the respondent /State in appeal. In the light of the same, when a similarly situated land has been awarded compensation at Rs. 1/- per Sq. feet, the present appellant also deserves to be awarded at the same rate. Moreover, there are sale-deeds on records which shows that some of the properties were sold at Rs. 1.50/- per Sq.feet, some at Rs. 75/- paise per Sq. feet and all these properties of which the sale-deeds are produced are situated in the 6 same vicinity. It is also not disputed that the said property was situated in a developed area and the potentiality of the said lands acquired was also good. In view of afore said facts and circumstances, I hold that the appellant /claimant could be entitled for compensation at Rs. 1/- per Sq.feet. The area of the acquired land is about 98,010 Sq. feet. As such, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 98,010/- (Ninty eight thousand and ten). I am not inclined to accept the argument of Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant that he is entitled for damages on account of severance of his land. There is nothing on record to show that because of the acquisition of the land the appellant has suffered some loss or damage. In the light of the same, I hold that the appellant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 98,010/- (Ninty eight thousand and ten). 7. The possession of the property was taken prior to Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As such, from 13th 7 September, 1966 till 17th July, 1969 the appellant would be entitled for rental compensation at the rate of Rs. 8% per annum on the amount of compensation. The appellant shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from 13th September, 1966 for one year and from 13th September, 1967 at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded till realisation of the total amount. Needless to state that the appellant shall also be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% as is prescribed under the statute on the amount of compensation. 8. The amount already paid by the State and received by the appellant shall be deducted from the amount payable. 9. The First Appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 729.89FA/151110