( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 OF 1993 Sagar s/o Bhimrao Since deceased by L.Rs. 1-A. Pralhad s/o Sagarrao Bachate, R/o Shendga, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. 1-B. Manchakrao s/o Sagarrao Bachate, R/o as above. APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, MKV, Parbhani. RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 OF 1993 1. Pralhad s/o Sagarrao, 2. Manchak s/o Sagarrao, Both r/o Shendga, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, MKV, Parbhani. 3. Sulochanabai Bapurao RESPONDENTS (Name of this respondent is deleted) ( 2 ) .... Mr. S.K. Adkine, advocate for the appellants in both first appeals. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the respondent/State in both the first appeals. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 30th November, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. These two appeals are being decided together in as much as the issues involved therein are identical. 2. An agricultural lands of the appellants were acquired by the respondent (State) for public purpose, namely, “Majalgaon Left Bank Canal”. Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21-05-1987. Thereafter, notification under section 6 was issued in due course of time. By his award dated 28-01-1989, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 4400/- per acre i.e. Rs. 11,000/- per hectare for the acquired lands. ( 3 ) 3. The appellants were dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. They accepted the amounts under protest after receiving notice under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. They preferred reference applications. Both the reference applications were registered by the civil Court vide Land Acquisition Reference No. 105/1990 and Land Acquisition Reference No. 106/1990. The appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. According to them, the acquired lands were fertile and could have fetched market value at rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The acquired lands were of rich black cotton soil, were giving good income to them and were having potentiality due to proximity of railway track in the nearby village i.e. Wadgaon. They submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer under valued the acquired lands. They relied upon certain sale instances. They also relied upon awards in respect of other acquired lands arising for purpose of same project. ( 4 ) 4. The Reference Court held that judgement rendered in another reference case bearing L.A.R. No. 108/1990 was delivered by the same Court and, therefore, could not be relied upon. The sale instances relied upon by the appellants were also discarded on the ground that one of the sale transactions pertained to the land situated in adjoining village Wadgaon and another one was of post-notification period. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded vide the impugned judgements rendered by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred these appeals. 6. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 7. Before I proceed to consider the rival contentions, it may be mentioned that the following details about the acquisition of the lands and the market value determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court are undisputed. ( 5 ) COMPARATIVE TABLE Sr No First Appeal No & LAR NO Name of claimant /appellant Descripti on of the land acquired (Survey No.) Area of land acquire d H = R Market value determined by SLAO (Rs.Ps.) Compensat ion claimed by the claimant/ responden t while seeking reference under section 18 of L A ACT (Rs.Ps.) Market Value determine d by the Reference Court. (Rs.Ps.) I II III IV V VI VII VIII 1 561/1993 in LAR No. 106/1990 Sagarrao s/o Bhimrao (Died) through L.Rs. 33/2 33/1/B 00.55 00.31 ------ 00.86 ------ 11,000/- per Hectare 50,000/- per Hectare (i.e. Rs. 20,000/- per Acre) 15,000/- Per Hectare (i.e. Rs. 6000/- per Acre) 2 566/1993 in LAR No. 105/1990 Pralhad Sagarrao and another 34/10 35/7 35/6 35/4 00.82 00.24 00.32 00.50 ----- 01.88 ----- 11,000/- per Hectare 50,000/- per Hectare (i.e. Rs. 20,000/- per Acre) 15,000/- per Hectare (i.e. Rs. 6000/- per Acre) 8. It is worthwhile to note that the appellants filed copy of sale-deed (Exh-12) in respect of a sale transaction of a land transferred by one Shivaji Bachate on 20-03-1985. Perusal of that sale-deed purports to show that land to the extent of 1 Hectare and 21 Ares out of survey No. 187 was owned by said Shivaji Bachate. ( 6 ) He had sold 3 acres of his land for consideration of Rs. 30,000/- to one Raghunath Tidke. This sale-deed is in respect of land situated at village Wadgaon. The Reference Court discarded the sale instance only on the ground that the alienated land is situated in another village. The another sale instance pertaining to alienation of land survey No. 128 situated at village Ukhali (Bk.) was discarded on the ground that the sale- deed was subsequent to the notification. It appears that one Bhanudas Hande and Shankar Salgar had sold their land survey No. 128 to the extent of 81 Ares area for consideration of Rs. 50,000/- vide the sale-deed dated 03-04-1989 (Exh-13). The Reference Court observed: “It is, therefore, clear that both the sale- deeds are from different villages. It is now settled principle that the value of the land acquired shortly before notification under section 54 (1) of the L.A. Act, is the best evidence to determine the market value. Having considered this position, it is clear that, the sale-deed which was held on 3.4.1989 i.e. after date of notification i.e. 21.5.1987 therefore, ( 7 ) though the sale-deed held approximately for Rs. 25,000/- per Acre, cannot be taken into consideration.” 9. The observations of the Reference Court are partly incorrect and improper. There is no rule of law to discard the sale instances of the lands situated in adjoining villages. The post-notification sale instance could be discarded. However, pre-notification sale instance could not be brushed aside only because the land alienated by Shivaji Bachate is situated at village Wadgaon. It has come in that evidence that village Wadgaon is situated 1½ (one and half) kms. away from the acquired lands. Assuming that the lands at village Wadgaon could have more potentiality and hence, could have fetched more market value as compared to lands situated at village Shendga where the acquired lands are situated, yet, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the difference in the market prices of the suit lands could no be much more. Another important aspect is that the land survey No. 187, Hissa No.1, situated at village Wadgaon was sold by said Shivaji Bachate on 20-03-1985 ( 8 ) i.e. approximately about a couple of years prior to notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. So, the increase in the prices within the period of said two years, if considered, then it follows that the market value of the lands situated at village Shendga could have been nearly same which the lands situated at village Wadgaon might have fetched before about two years of the acquisition. In other words, the juxtaposition available at the time of acquisition of the lands in question was that the market value thereof could be atleast similar to the sale instance in respect of the land survey No. 187, Hissa No. 1, situated at village Wadggaon and was sold before about two years for Rs. 30,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- P.A. The comparison with price escalation ought to have been considered. 10. In “State of Maharashtra and others v. Yashwant Kanhu Shirsath” 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. 204, this Court held that the lands of the adjacent villages can be made the basis for determination of fair market value of an ( 9 ) acquired land. The potential value of the land is required to be determined on strength of probabilities and possibilities. The sale instances cannot be discarded merely because the same are in respect of the lands situated in some other village. The Reference Court ought not to have discarded the sale instance in respect of the land sold by Shivaji Bachate vide Exh-12. 11. The appellants also filed copy of judgement rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 108/1990. True, that judgement was not binding on the Reference Court because it was rendered by the same Court. Still, however, when the acquired land involved in Land Acquisition Reference No. 108/1990 was situated in the proximity and the comparison can be fairly made with the acquired lands of the appellants. There was no reason to dislodge the findings of the Court in that Reference case. The awards about the similar lands are relevant. There is nothing on record to show that the judgement rendered by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 108/1990 (Exh-22) was challenged by the State and has been interfered with by ( 10 ) this Court. It appears that 2 Hectares 19 Ares out of survey No. 42/1 situated at village Shendga was acquired and, therefore, Land Acquisition Reference No. 108/1990 was tried before the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Parbhani at instance of owner of the acquired land by name Bhaktram Shankarrao through the mother. The learned Joint Civil Judge held that the market value of acquired land was Rs. 15,000/- per acre. Mr. Adkine also points out that in similar Land Acquisition Reference No. 109/1990, claimant Raghunath has been awarded the compensation at rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre by the Civil Court. He would submit that on basis of parity, the appellants should have been awarded same compensation. He further contended that the appellants have been singled out that other claimants of adjoining lands, who are covered under the same notification, have been awarded compensation at rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 12. I find it difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the Reference Court in respect of the criterion applied for determination of the market value of the ( 11 ) acquired lands. The Reference Court held that because there is railway station at village Wadgaon and population of that village is more than the population of village Shendga, there was scope to differentiate between market value of the lands situated at both the places. As stated earlier, there may be some difference, but such difference in the market value could not be of excessive nature. It is well settled that the market value of the lands situated at the adjoining villages can be duly considered for the purpose of comparison. Considering the market value determined by the Reference Court in other Land Acquisition References, arising out of the same notification, I am inclined to hold that the appellants could not be singled out by the Reference Court. They were entitled to seek identical compensation likewise the other claimants viz. Bhaktram, Baburao Munde, etc. Needless to say, the Reference Court failed to appreciate the worth of comparable sale instances and the copy of the judgement rendered by the Coordinate Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 108/1990 (Exh-20). Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding ( 12 ) that the appellants were entitled to seek compensation in respect of the acquired lands at rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre likewise the other claimants. It is the just and fair market value which the acquired lands could have fetched. They were also entitled to seek 15 per cent interest as provided under sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 13. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgement is set aside. The appellants are entitled to receive compensation at rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre, alongwith solatium at rate of 30 per cent on the total compensation and additional solatium alongwith 12 per cent component on the amount granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer from the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of award. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at rate of 9 per cent per annum for the first one year from date of the award and thereafter, at rate of 15 per cent per annum till realisation of the amount of compensation and solatium. ( 13 ) The enhanced compensation be paid to the appellants within period of four months. The amount already received by the appellants shall be deducted from the total amount of compensation which is payable to them. The parties to bear their own costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/fa566-561-93