1 FA 2457,2458,2459.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2457 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2458 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2459 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. B.J.Sonawane, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. Mr.V.B.Patil, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. The lands of the claimants were acquired. The claimants being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer [ For short, ‘ S.L.A.O. ’ ], preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation amount. The S.L.A.O. had granted compensation @ Rs. 54,000/- to Rs. 66,000/- per Hector. The Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs. 90,000/- per Hector. The State being 2 FA 2457,2458,2459.2010 aggrieved by the same, has filed the present Appeal. 2. Mr. B.J.Sonawane, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for State contends that the Reference Court has not properly construed the sale instances in as much as they were not comparable sale instances. The sale instance which was taken into consideration by the Reference Court was of irrigated land and the same could not have been considered in case of dry land. 3. Mr. V.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contends that the sale instance though was of irrigated land, the Reference Court has taken into consideration the said aspect and has computed market value half of the said rate, which according to the learned counsel is reasonable . 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 5. It is not disputed that the sale instance which was taken into consideration in para no. 23 of the Judgment was in respect of the land which was situated adjacent to the land acquired and the 3 FA 2457,2458,2459.2010 Reference Court, taking into account that the sale instance is of irrigated land and the land under acquisition is a dry land, has reduced the market value by half. The said yard-stick applied was proper and can not be faulted with. 6. In light of the above, no error is committed by the Reference Court while passing impugned Award. As such, the First Appeals being devoid of any merits are dismissed,however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/FA 2457,2458,2459.2010