1 17 fa.158.93 n 159.98 n 160.93 - Bopodi ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 OF 1993 Master Yogendra Narsinhrao Shinde. ... Appellant Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 159 OF 1993 Master Dhirendra @ Chetan Narsinhrao Shinde. ... Appellant Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 160 OF 1993 Mrs. Shobhadevi Narsinharao Shinde. ... Appellant Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Respondent ----- Mr. V.B.Rajure for the Appellant(s) in all the appeals. Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Respondent / State in all the appeals. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 20 th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 These three appeals can be disposed of by a common 2 17 fa.158.93 n 159.98 n 160.93 - Bopodi judgment as they arise out of a common judgment delivered in three references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquired lands were notified under Section 4(1) of the said Act on 4 th October, 1971. The acquired lands are situated at village Bopodi within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation for the purposes of construction of a Hospital for Defence Department. 2 An award was made under Section 11 of the said Act on 31 st March, 1982 offering market value at the rate of Rs.2/- per square meter. As the said award was not accepted, the references were made at the instance of the Appellants seeking enhancement in the market value. By the impugned judgment, the references have been dismissed by the Reference Court. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken the Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that the three sale 3 17 fa.158.93 n 159.98 n 160.93 - Bopodi instances were in respect of the comparable lands and especially the sale instance dated 20 th June, 1967. He submitted that on the basis of the said sale instance, the market value as of 1971 was Rs.3.50 per square meter. He, therefore, submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error by discarding the sale instances. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In paragraph No.30 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge on the basis of the plan produced at Exhibit – 63 recorded a finding that the land under acquisition has no direct access. The first sale instance is dated 9 th November, 1963. The relevant date in the present case is 4 th November, 1971. Thus, there is a gap of about eight years between the relevant date and the date of the sale instance. Therefore, the said instance has been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. The second sale instance is at Exhibit – 26 dated 24 th May, 1969. Apart from the fact that neither the vendor nor the purchaser were examined as witnesses, the recitals in the sale-deed show that the land subject matter of the sale-deed had direct an access on a road leading to 4 17 fa.158.93 n 159.98 n 160.93 - Bopodi Aundh Road. As far as third sale instance dated 20 th June, 1967 is concerned, firstly, there is a gap of about four years between the date of the sale instance and the relevant date. The sale instance was of very small plot of land admeasuring 7.17 square feet. That is the reason that the said sale instance has been rejected by the learned Reference Court. 5 Hence, it is not possible to find fault with the approach of the Reference Court. There is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]