ash 1 fa-123.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.123 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Vs Maruti Rama Srgar & Anr. ,, Respondents ­­ Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. ­­ CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 6TH APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT : . Heard learned AGP for the Appellant. By the impugned judgment and award dated 18th March, 1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur, a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been partly allowed. 2. The acquisition is in respect of the land bearing Gat No.459 situated at village Kole, Taluka Sangola, District Solapur. Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 24th May, 1992 and award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 23rd November, 1983. The Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation at the rate of Rs.8,129.35 p. As the award was not accepted by the Respondents­claimants, a reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made. The Respondent – Claimants claimed the market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/­ per acre. The Respondents also ash 1 fa-123.92 claimed a sum Rs.1,575/­ on account of bandh in the acquired land. The Reference Court, by the impugned award, held that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.16,000/­ per Hectare. In addition, the Reference Court granted statutory benefits under Section 23(1­A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the said Act. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant State of Maharashtra submitted that though the reliance is placed on three sale deeds by the Respondents, there is no evidence of comparable sale instances adduced by the Respondents. He submitted that the burden was on the Respondents to show that the market value of the acquired land offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. He submitted that there is no reason to grant enhancement in absence of any evidence adduced by the Respondents. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The learned Trial Judge has noted that even in the award under Section 11 of the said Act, it is recorded that the acquired land is a Bagayat land of good quality. Though the award under Section 11 is in the nature of an offer, the Appellant is bound by the factual statements made in the award and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly proceeded on the footing that the acquired land was a Bagayat land. Apart from the statement made in the award, the 1st Respondent stepped into the witness box and he stated that the acquired land was an irrigated and black soiled land and the Respondents used to take crop ash 1 fa-123.92 sugar cane and cotton in the said land. As far as this statement in the evidence is concerned, there does not seem to be any serious cross­ examination. By an award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer divided the lands into four categories and the market value of Rs.13,500/­ was fixed for fertile irrigated lands. 5. The Respondents relied upon the evidence recorded in Land Acquisition Reference No.21 of 1989. The Respondents relied upon the three sale deeds i.e. 4th November, 1968, 19th August, 1982 and 1st June, 1982. As far as the sale transaction of 1968 is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has rightly kept it out of consideration as the material date in the present case is 24th May, 1982. As far as the other two sale instances are concerned, they are in the close proximity of the relevant date. The sale instance dated 19th August, 1982 is in respect of Bagayat land admeasuring 28 gunthas which was sold at the market value of Rs.17,000/­ per hectare. The land subject matter of sale deed dated 1st June, 1982 was having an area of 60 ares which was sold at Rs.16,600/­ per hectare. The sale instances relate to the land in the same village. As stated earlier, the maximum market value fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of fertile irrigated land was at Rs.13,000/­ per hectare. The sale deeds dated 19th August, 1982 and 1st June, 1982 show the trend of prices. The learned Trial Judge has not awarded market value as per the sale deed dated 1st June, 1982 but he has reduced the market value to Rs. 16,000/­ per hectare. ash 1 fa-123.92 6. It is well settled that determination of the market value under Section 23 of the said Act always involves element of guess work. Considering the evidence on record, market value fixed at the rate of Rs.16,000/­ per hectare cannot be faulted with. There is no dispute about grant of statutory benefits. 7. Hence, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE