( 1 ) fast25204.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25204 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Kashibai Babruwan Bhojane .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25059 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Laxman Saybanna Mudkanna .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25065 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Ram Saybanna Mudkanna .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 24997 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Shankar Shivappa Patale .. Respondent ( 2 ) fast25204.09 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25091 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Sambhu Maruti Kardame .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25084 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Mallinath Shrimant Mudkanna .. Respondent Shri S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for the appellant/State. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATED : 04.07.2011 P.C. :- 1. These are appeals presented by the State raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 303 of 2004 and other companion Reference Applications decided on 08.08.2008 and 17.06.2008. ( 3 ) fast25204.09 2. The agricultural land in respect of the claimants came to be acquired for construction of Benitura Medium Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 21.04.1988 and after following the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed on 21.11.1992. The land acquisition officer offered amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs. 4800/- per acre. The claimants being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered applications seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per hectare with statutory benefits. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. 3. In order to substantiate their claim, the claimants placed reliance on the oral evidence of the respective claimants as well as one witness Arvind Kashinath Ambar at Exh. 30 to prove sale instance placed on record. One Arvind ( 4 ) fast25204.09 Amber – claimant’s witness claims to have purchased 1 hectare 23 R land out of Survey No. 396/1, situated at Murum from one Damayantibai Phule on 19.03.1994 for consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-. It is stated by the witness that there was ban in respect of execution of sale-deed, as such, although agreement was entered into in 1995 and amount was paid to the land owner. Only agreement to sell was executed on 26.04.1985 and sale-deed got executed in the year 1994. It is, thus, contended that the transaction is, in-fact, of the year 1985. However, sale-deed is executed in the year 1994. It is stated by the witness that the distance between the land covered by the sale deed and the acquired land is 1 km. The witness has also deposed about quality and fertility of the acquired land and stated that the land purchased by him is of similar quality as that of land acquired by the State. The claimants also placed reliance on the judgment in the Reference Application bearing Nos. 380/04, 471/04, 468/04, 151/04, 137/05 and 398/04. In similar circumstances and in respect of land situated nearby vicinity, the Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per acre. ( 5 ) fast25204.09 4. The Reference Court on consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the claimants came to the conclusion that the market price of the acquired land shall be Rs. 14,000/- per acre. The sale instance placed on record by the claimant is in respect of the land having irrigation facility of well. Considering the distance between the acquired land and the land covered by sale instance is having irrigation facility, the Reference Court has scaled down the compensation in respect of acquired land by more than 50%. 5. With the assistance of learned A.G.P appearing for the State, I have gone through the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and have also examined the documentary as well as oral evidence, copies of which were made available by learned A.G.P. 6. Considering all relevant circumstances, I am of the view that the Reference Court has adopted reasonable approach in the matter and the enhancement that has been granted. The amount of compensation payable to the claimant is quite ( 6 ) fast25204.09 reasonable. In view of the matter, no interference is called for. The appeals, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. [R.M. BORDE, J.] snk/2011/JUL11/fast25204.09