FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 20. FA/960/2009 WITH FA/961/2009 WITH FA/962/2009 WITH FA/963/2009 WITH FA/964/2009 WITH FA/965/2009 With CA/7083/2008 In FA/960/2009 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. J.S.Gavhane, AGP, for appellant. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 8 th June, 2009 ... 1. Heard Counsel. 2. The State feels aggrieved by the award dt. 29.9.2003 whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, while allowing the (2) claimants petition (FA No.960/2009) partly, has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/­ per Hectare for lands Gat Nos.102,103 and 93 and at the rate of Rs.75,000/­ per hectare for land Gat No.108 after deducting the compensation already paid as shown in column No.9 of the Schedule `A’ . There were other statutory benefits awarded in favour of original claimants. 3. The learned Judge, while accepting enhancement, in paragraph no.8 has discussed about the topography of the acquired land which highlights its potentiality, more leaning to the non agricultural purposes and it being located at a distance of one k.m from aerodrome and also it being nearby Navodaya Vidyalaya of the Central Government and Manjara habitation. Considering these aspects and since the learned Judge has gone into the revenue record i.e the sale (3) instances, I do not see that there is any error on the part of the learned Judge in granting enhancement. 4. The appeals being sans merit, are rejected. No costs. Respective Civil Applications are also dismissed. (K.U.Chandiwal) Judge. agp/office/fa960­09gr