1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.489 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, Appellant/orig. through Collector, Jalgaon. Respondent. versus 01. Raghunath Kashinath Chaudhari age nil,r/o Mehun, Tq.Edlabad District Jalgaon. 02. Pralhad Kashiram Chaudhari, age nil,r/o Mehun,Tq. Edlabad, Respondents/ District Jalgaon. ori.claimants WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.490 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra Appellant/orig. (through) Special Land Respondent. Acquisition Officer, Dist. Jalna. versus 01. Ravindra Dhanu Patil, age nil, r/of Mehun, Respondent/ori. Tq.Edlabad, Dist.Jalgaon. claimant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.491 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra,through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Appellant/ Jalgaon. ori.Resp. 2 versus 1. Supadu Bhavji Patil 2. Shivram Bhavji Patil 3. Jivram Bhavji Patil 4. Rambhabai Bhavji Patil Respondents/ original All r/of Mehun, Taluka claimants. Edlabad, Dist.Jalgaon. ------------------------------------------------------ Shri B.V. Wagh, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the appellant. Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for Respondent (absent). ------------------------------------------------------ Coram : P.R. Borkar, J. Date : July 16, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 01. These three first appeals are filed by State against common judgment in three Land Acquisition References bearing Nos.213,214 and 215 of 1991 decided by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, by common judgment delivered on 24.7.1995. 02. It is not disputed that the lands of Respondents-claimants situated at village Mehun 3 Tq. Edlabad, District Jalgaon, were acquired for the purpose of Hatnoor project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 18.12.1985. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/= and Rs.18,000/= per hectare for jirayat lands and double of the same for bagayat lands. Learned judge of reference court, as per para.8 of his judgment, accepted the classification of land into jirayat and bagayat as done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and also stated that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had rightly considered the price of bagayat land to be double than that of jirayat land. 03. It is submitted by learned A.G.P. Shri Wagh that though the reference court in paragraph 8 of it judgment has observed that one sale instance of group 5 and three sale instances of group 5 were available with the Special Land Acquisition Officer and he had referred to the same in his award, still the reference court has 4 referred to and relied upon one sale instance from another village i.e. village Changdeo which was about 2-3 kilometers away as per the claimants and about 3-4 kilometers from the lands acquired as per the appellant's witness. It is also observed by the learned Reference Court that 3-4 kilometer is is a small distance and, therefore, the said sale instance is a comparable instance. 04. Shri Wagh, learned A.G.P. has drawn my attention to the depositions of the witnesses and submitted that only the claimant is examined in each case and neither the seller nor the purchaser of the land is examined. It is admitted that the village Changdeo is also on the bank of river Tapi and the Hatnoor project is also on the said river. So, it is stated that the land under sale instance must also be irrigated land. Absolutely, there is nothing in the copy of the sale deed to show that it was bagayat land. No distance of this land from river Tapi is brought on record. The sale instance does not describe the land as bagayat or jirayat. Learned A.G.P. argued that it is presumed 5 to be jirayat land without there being any evidence, such as 7 x 12 extract indicating the land to be irrigated land. 05. In all three matters only one sale instance is relied upon. No doubt, the said sale instance is dated 7.5.1979. By the said sale instance 29 R. land from Gat No.586 was sold for Rs.21,000/=. Reference Court has considered Rs. 1.00 lakh per hectare as market value of the land. When the sale deed does not show that the land is irrigated or when it has not indicated any source of water and when all the claimants have in their deposition stated that it was jirayat land, it does not appear that the Reference Court has committed any error in treating the sale instance as of jirayat land. It is not suggested that the claimants were not aware of the lands of the adjoining village. so, no error can be found with the trial court in relying upon the sale instance. 6 06. It is argued that mere production of copy of sale deed is not enough. However, I may refer to section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act which speaks about acceptance of certified copy as evidence. It speaks that in any proceedings under the Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act 1908, including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as a evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. 07. It, therefore, cannot be said that the reference court has committed any error in relying upon the sale instance produced. No evidence in rebuttal is placed on record indicating that the sale instance is not of comparable category or that there were other instances which are of lesser value or that the land of which the sale deed is produced has some special additional advantage. It appears that since Hatnoor project itself is on river Tapi, we can presume that the lands in the vicinity of the said river, are of same quality. Conclusion reached by the learned 7 Reference Court, therefore, cannot be said to be wrong. 08. In the facts and circumstances, all the three first appeals stand dismissed. pnd/fa489.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) 8