1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 125 OF 1993 Vithalrao s/o Shivram Waghmare, Age 45 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Gojegaon,Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded (Died), by his L.R. Ashok s/o Vithalrao Waghmare, Age 40 years, Occ. Agri., Resident of as above. Appellant V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, MIW, Nanded. Respondents Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the respondents / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 12th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 23rd March, 1990, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 51 of 1986. 2. It is common ground that the appellant’s land admeasuring 45 Are, bearing land Survey No.50/2/2-E and 50/2, situated at village Gojegaon, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded was acquired for Irrigation Project. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9th September, 1982, and the Award was passed on 27th January, 1984. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.6,000/- per Hectare, as compensation. 3. The appellant took the matter to the Reference Court, and after recording evidence of the appellant, the learned Judge of the 2 Reference Court increased the compensation to Rs.15,000/- per Hectare. Aggrieved by this decision, this appeal is filed. The appellant, in order to support his case, placed reliance on one sale instance. It was Exhibit No. 34 on the record of the lower Court. This sale instance was in respect of sale of a land admeasuring 1 acre 16 gunthas of village Dhanora, an adjoining village, sold for Rs.14,000/-, on 5th March, 1981. This sale instance was of the period which was a few months prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Judge of the Reference Court held in paragraph No. 18 that in view of the sale instance, the market value of the land in question, could be Rs.25,000/- per Hectare. But, for separate reasons recorded in the Judgment, he held that the market value of the land in question could not be more than Rs.15,000/- per Hectare. 4. Similarly placed claimants had filed similar appeals in this Court bearing First Appeals No. 123 of 1993, 124 of 1993, 130 of 1993, 126 of 1993, 127 of 1993, 128 of 1993 and 129 of 1993. All the appellants in these appeals were resident of Gojegaon, whose lands were acquired by the same land acquisition proceeding. Those appellants even challenged the Judgment of the same Judge, who delivered the Judgment in this case. Having regard to the evidence that has come on record in those cases, the learned single Judges of this Court in those appeals held that the similarly placed claimants were entitled for the compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per Hectare. In my view, the present appellant would also be entitled to similar compensation, because his land fell in the same group. This group, thus, formed one Unit and all claimants in one Unit would be entitled to similar compensation. In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003, SC 4382), it was held : “Even otherwise when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such 3 proceeding this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments.” In view of this, the present appeal would partly succeed. ORDER a. The Appellant shall be paid compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per Hectare alongwith statutory benefits. b. The Reference Court shall complete the exercise of calculation of compensation on the basis of modified Award within a period of three months from the date of receipt of Writ of this Judgment. c. The appeal is thus partly allowed alongwith costs of this appeal. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/fa/125/93