1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 33 OF 1994 Madhav s/o. Laxman Pawar, Age 42 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Karajgaon, Tal. Omerga, District Latur. ....Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad. ....Respondent. Shri. M.P. Tripathi Advocate h/f. Shri. K.G. Ghute-Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This appeal is by the original claimant Madhav Laxman Pawar, challenging the judgment and order dated 10.12.1992 passed by the learned Reference Court, Osmanabad in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 19/1991 to the extent it rejects the claim of the appellant/claimant for compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/- per acre in respect of the land under acquisition. 2 2. The appellant claims to be the owner of survey No. 17/1 and 17/4 situated at village Karajgaon, Taluka Umerga, District Osmanabad, admeasuring 3 hector 37 R. (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"). 3. On 19.8.1985 notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of the land in question for the purpose of Gavthan. The said notification was published in the official gazette on 24.10.1985. Thereafter, declaration under section 6 was issued and ultimately on 18.8.1987 the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award granting compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre as market value of the land acquired. 3. Dissatisfied by this award, the appellant preferred the Land Acquisition Reference No. 19/1991 which was tried by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad. The issues were framed. The appellant examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined P.W. 2 Keshav Barkule and P.W. 3 Kishan Jadhav and produced on record the documents at Exhs. 16, 17 and 18, which are the sale deeds in support of his claim for compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. 4. The reference Court considered the said instances at Exhs. 16, 17 and 18 in the light of the oral evidence led by the claimant. Exh. 16 is sale 3 deed dated 28th of June 1982 in respect of the land situated at Makani, Exh. 17 is sale deed dated 15th of May 1983 in respect of the land situated at village Sastur and Exh. 18 is the sale deed dated 6th December 1982 in respect of land situated at Ausa. As pointed out earlier, the notification under section 4 was issued on 9.8.1985, the sale instances produced on record apparently pertained to the year 1982-83. The Reference Court relied upon Exh. 16 dated 28th June 1982 which reflected market value of land at Rs.14,500/- per acre. Taking this to be the basis, the reference Court had arrived at the market price of Rs. 16,000/- per acre in respect of the land in question on the date of issuance of the notification in the year 1985. This judgment and order passed by the Reference Court is in challenge in this appeal by the claimant, who claims enhancement in compensation from Rs. 16,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per acre. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the sale deeds at Exhs. 16, 17 and 18 and also read over the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1 to 3. The contention of the appellant is that Exh. 18 which is a sale deed dated 6.12.1982, reflects the market value of the land at Rs. 18,550/- per acre, though the sale deed is for an amount of Rs.25,000/- for 1 acre 7 guntas of land situated at village Mangrul, Taluka Ausa. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Shri. M.P. Tripathi holding for Shri. K.G. Ghute-Patil advocate that sale deed Exh. 18 is more proximate, not only to the date of the 4 notification, but also to the location of the land in question. He relied upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Kishan Jadhav, who states that on the southern side Umerga sight is there and on the northern side Ausa sight is there from the land in question. He has further stated that there is only one Terna river in between Ausa and Umerga talukas and the distance between the land in question and the rive is about 1 k.m. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that the Reference Court ought to have relied upon the sale deed Exh. 18 and should have, therefore, granted compensation at the rate of Rs.18,550/- per acre as reflected in the said deed. 6. The learned A.G.P. Shri. N.H. Borade appearing for the respondent opposed the claim of the appellant/claimant and states that this aspect has been taken in to consideration by the Reference Court. According to him, the Reference Court has considered all the sale deeds in question and has arrived at market value of Rs. 16,000/- per acre in respect of the land in question which is just, fair and reasonable. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, submits that there is no substance in the appeal and the same should be dismissed. 7. It is true that the sale deed at Exh. 18 dated 6.12.1982 is closer to the date of issuance of the notification which is of 19th of August 1985 than the sale deed which is at Exh. 16 relied upon by the Reference Court. P.W.3 Kishan Jadhav who has sold the land under Exh. 18 has 5 stated in his evidence that the distance between the land in question and the land under the sale deed is about 2.5 to 3 k.m. The learned Judge of the Reference Court has taken this aspect in to consideration and has recorded a finding that the two sale instances of village Makani and Sastur can be taken in to consideration. The learned Judge of the Reference Court has recorded the reasons for rejecting Exh. 18 on the ground that that is away from the land of claimant. The lands under Exhs. 16 and 17 are at a distance of 1.5 k.m. away from the land in question. The finding is based upon the appreciation of the evidence and also the material available on record. I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Reference Court. The Reference Court has correctly arrived at the market value of Rs. 16,000/- per acre and I, therefore, find no reason to enhance the said compensation in the absence of their being any concrete material on record. 8. In view of the above, I find no substance in the instant appeal for enhancement. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/fa33.94