1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 345 OF 1993 1. Shivraj Bhimrao Biradar, Age 50 years, Occu. Agril., 2. Yeshwantrao Bhimrao Biradar, Age 40 years, Occu. Agril., Both R/o Jawalga (Sakol), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... Appellants. Versus The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Latur ... Respondent. -------- Shri. Ashish Jadhavar Advocate holding for Advocate N.P. Patil for appellants. Smt. V.A. More AGP for the respondent / State. -------- CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 7th NOVEMBER 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) This First Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Latur in LAR No. 179 of 1988. 2 2) By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge held that the appellants were entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 16,000/- per acre. The enhancement of compensation was granted as per the assessment of the value of the land acquired by the respondents. 3) There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants are owners of the agricultural land bearing survey No. 198 situated at Village Jawalga under Udgir Tahasil (District Latur). There is also no dispute about the fact that notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25-08-1982 and was duly published in Government Gazette. The land was proposed to be acquired for public purpose, namely, ‘Girakchal’ project. A common Award was rendered Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 02-09-1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) who awarded compensation Rs. 7,000/- per acre. The appellants were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. They demanded 3 compensation @ of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. They filed Reference application. The Collector referred application Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Civil Court. 4) The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the learned Additional District Judge in the proceeding of the inquiry of the reference case along with other applicants. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the acquired land could be fetched market value of Rs. 16,000/- per acre and, therefore, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 7,000/- per acre to Rs. 16,000/- per acre. The appellants seek further enhancement of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. They would submit that the standing trees have been considered and properly estimated for the purpose of valuation. They would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate and liable to be enhanced. They would submit that standing crops were not duly considered for the assessment of the value. They 4 contended that the land in question is a furtile one. Therefore, they seek additional compensation at the enhanced rate. 5) Heard learned counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is important to notice that the appellants heavily relied upon PW Dattatraya. According to PW Dattatraya, he purchased non-irrigated agricultural land situated at Village Lohara in the month of September 1980 vide sale-deed (Exh. 29) at the market rate of Rs. 22,800/- per acre. The learned counsel would submit that such sale transaction ought to have been considered by the Reference Court. What appears from the record is that Village Lohara is situated at distance of about ten K.M’s from Taluka place i.e. Udgir, whereas Village Jawalga is situatd at a distance of fourty K.M.’s. It is of common knowledge that the lands in the proximity of township could fetch more market value, due to availability of necessary facilities in the proximity of the 5 village, and also probability of enhancement of residential zone of the township. However, the agricultural lands which are far away from the Taluka place or District place may not fetch the same value likewise the agricultural lands in the proximity of such cases. Obviously the reference Court was right in rejecting the sale instance referred to by PW Dattatraya. 6) The Reference Court has considered the sale instance dated 06-04-1981 (Exh. 31) in respect of any agricultural land situated at village Gurdhal. The learned Advocate for the appellant has placed on record copy of judgment. i\In similar appeals (F.A. No. 480 of 1992, F.A. No. 481 of 1992, F.A. No. 622 of 1992, F.A. No. 184 of 1994, F.A. No. 320 of 1994, F.A. No. 321 of 1994 and F.A. No. 388 of 1994) by common judgment dated 12-06-2008, a Single Judge of this Court has held that the agricultural lands were acquired for ‘Girikchal’ Project could have fetched a market value at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Therefore, learned Advocate 6 would submit that the appellants are entitled to claim amount likewise that of other claimants. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that acquired land of the appellant’s is situated in the proximity of the lands which are involved in other First Appeals referred to above. In other words, the lands are in the proximity of each other. It goes without saying that the market value of the appellants’ land would be the same likewise other lands acquired for the said purpose. Considering these aspects, I feel it proper to hold that the market value of the acquired land of the appellants’ ought to be determined at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. There is no substantial difference to justify the lessor amount of price for the lands of the appellants. 7) In the result, the First Appeal is partly allowed. The appellants’ are entitled to receive, compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre for the acquired land along with statutory benefits available Under Section 23(1- 7 A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of compensation. The appellants’ would be entitled to solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation along with the interest in accordance with the provisions of law. The Reference Court shall work out the total amount of compensation payable to the appellants and shall direct payment of amount after deducting the amount which has been already paid to them. No order as to the costs. (V.R. KINGAONKAR) SDM/ 345.93 8