IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION (1) (1) (1) FIRST APPEAL NO.998 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.998 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.998 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Nanasaheb L. Deshmukh ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (2) (2) (2) FIRST APPEAL NO.999 OF 2001 FIRST APPEAL NO.999 OF 2001 FIRST APPEAL NO.999 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Daulat Shankar More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (3) (3) (3) FIRST APPEAL NO.1000 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1000 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1000 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Popat Damu More and Anr. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (4) (4) (4) FIRST APPEAL NO.1001 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1001 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1001 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Vishwanath Shankar More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (5) (5) (5) FIRST APPEAL NO.1002 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1002 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1002 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Gopal Pandu Bhove ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (6) (6) (6) FIRST APPEAL NO.1003 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1003 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1003 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Raosaheb Sukhadeo More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (7) (7) (7) FIRST APPEAL NO.1004 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1004 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1004 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Prasharam Yeshwant More & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (8) (8) (8) FIRST APPEAL NO.1005 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1005 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1005 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant : 2 : 2 : 2 : Versus Popat Ranja More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (9) (9) (9) FIRST APPEAL NO.1006 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1006 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1006 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Babu Kisan More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (10) (10) (10) FIRST APPEAL NO.1007 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1007 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1007 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Shankar Lakhu Naik ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (11) (11) (11) FIRST APPEAL NO.1008 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1008 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1008 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Damu Anaji More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (12) (12) (12) FIRST APPEAL NO.1009 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1009 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1009 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Vishwanath Shankar More & Anr. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (13) (13) (13) FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Bhiku Mahadu More & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (14) (14) (14) FIRST APPEAL NO.1011 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1011 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1011 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Kashinath Damu More & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (15) (15) (15) FIRST APPEAL NO.1012 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1012 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1012 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Santu Krishnaji More & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (16) (16) (16) FIRST APPEAL NO.1013 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1013 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1013 OF 1991 : 3 : 3 : 3 : The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Narayn Shridhar Joshi ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (17) (17) (17) FIRST APPEAL NO.1014 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1014 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1014 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Nivrutti Panjaji More & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (18) (18) (18) FIRST APPEAL NO.1015 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1015 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1015 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Fakra Kashinath More & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (19) (19) (19) FIRST APPEAL NO.1016 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1016 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1016 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Shivram Brku Dagale & Anr. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (20) (20) (20) FIRST APPEAL NO.1017 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1017 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1017 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Narayan Ganu More ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (21) (21) (21) FIRST APPEAL NO.1018 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1018 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1018 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Bhimashankar P. Patil ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (22) (22) (22) FIRST APPEAL NO.1019 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1019 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1019 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Taibai Sukdeo More & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (23) (23) (23) FIRST APPEAL NO.1020 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1020 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1020 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Ranganath Rajaram More ) ...Respondent : 4 : 4 : 4 : ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (24) (24) (24) FIRST APPEAL NO.1021 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1021 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1021 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Rajaram Punjaji More & Anr. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (25) (25) (25) FIRST APPEAL NO.1022 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1022 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1022 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Thakubai Dinkar Dalvi & Anr. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (26) (26) (26) FIRST APPEAL NO.1023 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1023 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1023 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Shri I.S.More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (27) (27) (27) FIRST APPEAL NO.1024 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1024 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1024 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Sushilabai Dattu Apesunde ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (28) (28) (28) FIRST APPEAL NO.1025 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1025 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1025 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Rajaram Punjaji More & Anr. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (29) (29) (29) FIRST APPEAL NO.1026 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1026 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1026 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Pandurang Runja More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (30) (30) (30) FIRST APPEAL NO.1027 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1027 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1027 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Baban Khandu Hire & Ors. ) ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (31) (31) (31) FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus : 5 : 5 : 5 : Murlidhar Ramaji Teli ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (32) (32) (32) FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Santu Krishnaji More ) ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH (33) (33) (33) FIRST APPEAL NO.1031 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1031 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1031 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Ramrao Trimbak More ) ...Respondent AND AND AND (34) (34) (34) FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ) ...Appellant Versus Dagu Raoji More ) ...Respondent --- Shri B.H.Mehta, A.G.P for the Appellant in First Appeals at serial Nos.1 to 10. Mrs G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P for the Appellant in First Appeals at serial Nos.11 to 18. Shri S.N.Gawade, A.G.P for the Appellant in First Appeals at serial Nos.19 to 34. Shri R.M.Hardas and Shri P.N.Joshi for the Respondent in First Appeals at serial Nos.1 to 10. Shri S.M.Gorwadkar for the Respondent in First Appeals at serial Nos.16,17, 28 and 30. --- CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 14th, 15th MARCH, 2008. : 14th, 15th MARCH, 2008. : 14th, 15th MARCH, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. I have heard the submissions of advocates appearing for the parties. Hearing of the submissions has been concluded yesterday. These appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment and order as the : 6 : 6 : 6 : challenge in these appeals is to a common judgment delivered by the learned Joint District Judge, Nasik in a group of 35 Land Acquisition References under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. It will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued on 21st February, 1981 by which the lands at village Jalkhed, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik were notified for acquisition. The purpose of acquisition of these lands was for submergence of Waghad dam. The awards under section 11 of the said Act were made in these cases on 08th June, 1983. The Special Land Acquisition Officer divided the acquired lands in four groups depending upon the rates of assessment of the concerned land. The division made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer reads thus: --------------------- ---------- ------------------ Rate Group Rate of compensat- of ion awarded by the assessment LAO per hectare. --------------------- ---------- ------------------ Rs.1 to 1.25 ps. I Rs.2500/- Rs.1.26 to 2.50 ps. II Rs.4000/- Rs.2.51 to 3.75 ps. III Rs.5500/- Rs.3.76 to 5.00 IV Rs.7000/- For Pot Kharaba V Rs.200/- p.h. ----------------------------------------------------- : 7 : 7 : 7 : As the compensation awarded was not accepted by the respondents-claimants, at their instance, references under section 18 of the said Act were made. In the references the claim was for enhancement of market value. In some cases there was an additional claim for compensation on account of trees. By the impugned common judgment, the learned Joint District Judge divided the acquired lands into four groups. The market value fixed by the learned Judge reads thus: Jirait Group I 9000/- per hectare Jirait Group II 11000/- per hectare Jirait Group III 12500/- per hectare Jirait Group IV 14000/- per hectare For bagayat lands the learned Judge fixed the market value at rate of one and half times the rates fixed for the jirayat lands. The market value of pot-kharaba land was fixed at the blanket rate of Rs.01,000/- per hectare. For guava trees, compensation was granted at the rate of Rs.399.30/- which was the rate awarded even by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the awards under section 11. For mango trees, the additional compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.01,000/- per hectare over and above the market value granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. : 8 : 8 : 8 : 3. The learned A.G.P appearing for the appellant-State of Government has taken me through the notes of evidence and documentary evidence on record. The submission is that there was no evidence adduced by the claimants of comparable sale instances. The learned A.G.P pointed out that the sale instances which are relied upon by the respondents relate to lands which were far away from the acquired lands. It is submitted that the said sale instances are of lands situated in altogether different villages. He pointed out that the judgments and awards under section 18 of the said Act relied upon by the learned trial Judge which were at Exhibit 34 and Exhibit 47 relate to lands situated in different village. He criticized the approach of the learned reference Court of awarding separate market value/compensation for trees. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Guru Charan Singh (1995 Supplementary (2) Supreme Court Cases Page 637) and submitted that the compensation for the land as well as for fruit bearing trees cannot be determined separately. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Vs. S.T.Pompanna Setty [(2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases Page 662). He submitted that the compensation fixed by the reference Court is excessive and infact in absence of any relevant : 9 : 9 : 9 : evidence on record adduced by the respondents-claimants, the references ought to have been dismissed. He submitted that the entire burden of proving that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate was on the respondents-claimants and they have not discharged the burden. Shri Gorwadkar and Shri Joshi appearing for the various respondents supported impugned judgments and awards. They submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the respondents are relating to lands in the adjoining villages which were notified for the acquisition for the same public purpose. Their submission is that the acquired lands which are situated at village Jalkhed, Taluka Dindori, District Nasik were ultimately submerged below the water of the dam and same was the case with the lands which were subject matter of the other sale instances produced by the respondents. Their submission is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Harindarpal Singh & others [(2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases Page 564), there was every justification for taking into consideration the sale instances of the lands which are affected by the same project. They have placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and another (AIR 2004 Supreme Court page 3981). Lastly, they placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sakpal and others Vs. Union of India (AIR 1997 : 10 : 10 : 10 : Supreme Court page 3882). Their submission is that in so far as the rates fixed for mango and guava trees are concerned, there is an evidence on record of an expert horticulturist. Their submission is that the market value of the acquired lands as well as market value of the trees fixed by the reference Court is just and reasonable. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The relevant date for determination of the market value in the present case is 21st February, 1981 which is the date on which notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued. The date of award under section 11 is 08th June, 1983. As the awards has been made after 30th April, 1982, there cannot be any dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and section 28 of the said Act. 5. The first instance relied upon by the claimants is of Sale Deed dated 19th July, 1982 executed by one Popat Gopal Kedar in favour of Keru. The said sale instance is in respect of a land situated at village Chachadgaon, Taluka Dindori, District Nasik. The price reflected from the said document is Rs.43,550/-. The Sale Deed relates to area of 13 Acres, equivalent to 5 H 27.10 Ares. The purchaser under the said Sale Deed at : 11 : 11 : 11 : Exhibit 10 was examined as a witness. The purchaser deposed that his vendor was desirous of selling the land and therefore Agreement for Sale was entered into on 30th November, 1981. However, Sale Deed was executed on 19th July, 1982 after obtaining permission of competent authority. In the cross-examination he stated that at the time of purchasing the land, the work of Waghad dam was almost complete. He stated that the distance between Chachadgaon and Jalkhed is 5 kms. He stated that some of the lands at village Chachadgaon have submerged under the Waghad dam. He stated that lands innearby village Umrale have also got submerged in Waghad dam. He deposed that before execution of the Sale Deed he paid sum of Rs.6,411/- to the vendor. 6. The second sale instance on which reliance is placed is of a Sale Deed dated 16th July, 1979 (Exhibit 13) executed by one Chandrabhaga Chaure in favour of one Dinkar Kalu Bhoye. The said Sale Deed relates to area of 11.5 Ares situates at village Konkangaon, Taluka Dindori, District Nasik. The purchaser under the Sale Deed Shri Dinkar was examined as a witness. In the examination-in-chief he proved the said Sale Deed. In the cross-examination he stated that when he acquired the land it was a paddy land and there was a mango tree on the land. He stated that village Krishnagaon is on Vani-Dindori road. He stated that village Krishnagaon : 12 : 12 : 12 : was at a distance of 9 to 10 Kms from his village Konkangaon. 7. On the behalf of the claimants one Shri Nanasaheb Deshmukh (claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No.26 of 1985) deposed before the Court. He described the location of his own land. He narrated the details of the income received by him from the paddy crop as well as from the fruit bearing trees. He referred to the income from guava trees as well as mango trees which were planted on some of the lands subject matter of the land acquisition references. Reliance was placed by the claimants on judgment and award dated 02nd March, 1984 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nasik in Land Acquisition Reference No.148 of 1982 and other connected matters. The certified copy of the judgment is placed on record at Exhibit 34. By the said judgment, references under section 18 of the said Act arising out of acquisition of lands at village Krishnagaon, Taluka Dindori, District Nasik have been decided. The said lands were acquired for Ozarkhed project. Reliance has been placed on another judgment dated 28th September, 1983 passed by the Joint District Judge, Nasik in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 1980. The said judgment relates to acquisition of agricultural lands at village Umrale, Taluka Dindoli, District Nasik for the submergence of the same Waghad : 13 : 13 : 13 : dam. 8. The claimants examined one Suresh Kashyap as an expert witness. He is a retired Director of agriculture possessing qualification of B.Sc degree in agriculture. He stated that the valuer appointed by the Government has submitted a report by which the valuation of 115 guava trees in survey No.219A has been made at Rs.49,919.50/-. In the cross-examination he stated that opinion of Shri Patil was that yield of guava trees varies from 100 to 200 Kg per tree. He stated that he was unable to state whether yield per tree of guava tree will be 200 to 300 Kg per tree. 9. The claimants examined one Dattatraya Bengali as a witness. The said witness Dattatraya is holding B.Sc degree in agriculture. He stated that initially he was appointed as a demonstrator in horticulture in agricultural college at Pune. Thereafter, he passed master’s degree in horticulture in the year 1964. He stated that he was appointed as a professor at Government college at Dhule and was entrusted with the work of development of fruit garden. Later on he was appointed as a Deputy Director of Horticulture at Nasik and he retired from the service in the year 1984. He deposed that it was his job to have sufficient knowledge of the produce of various fruits bearing trees including : 14 : 14 : 14 : guava. He stated that though he had not visited the acquired lands, copies of the reports were given to him by the claimants in respect of age, condition and yield of the trees. He stated that as per his experience and knowledge, the produce of local variety of guava should have been taken as 100 kg per tree per year. In case of guava trees of other varieties, the produce should be taken at 150 kg per tree per year. He relied upon a book published by the principal of the agricultural college of Dhule in support of his opinion. In the cross-examination he denied that he has falsely deposed about the yield from guava trees. He denied that 50% of the total cost is required for rearing the trees. He stated that he had calculated value of one guava tree of Rs.1436/- on the basis of 40 years multiplier. He stated that he was unable to say whether multiplier of 8 to 10 is taken for the fruit growing trees for assessing the yield. 10. Now coming back to the sale instances relied upon by the claimants, the first sale instance at Exhibit 10 is of a Sale Deed dated 19th July, 1982 in respect of land at Chachadgaon. The witness Shantaram stated that prior to the execution of the said Sale Deed, an Agreement for Sale was initially entered into on 30th November, 1981. He stated that the talks between himself and the vendor were in progress for : 15 : 15 : 15 : about 8 to 10 months prior to the execution of the sale. Thus, the date of bargain in this case is 30th November, 1981. He stated that Sale Deed was executed only after obtaining requisite permission of the authorities. In the cross-examination, he has stated that distance between Chachadgaon and Jalkhed is 5 Kms. He stated that some lands of Chachadgaon village have submerged in Waghad dam. He stated that a large area of Umrale village is also submerged in Waghad dam. He stated that a sum of Rs.6011/- was paid by him to the vendor prior to the execution of the Sale Deed. The material date in these appeals for determination of compensation is 21st February, 1981. The sale instance at Exhibit 10 is in a reasonable proximity of the material date. The market value reflected in the said Sale Deed is as on 30th November, 1981 which is approximately Rs.8263/- per hectare. The assessment of the land subject-matter of the said sale instance was Rs.0.95/- per hectare. Lowest market awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is of Rs.2500 per hectare for a land having assessment of Rs.1 to 1.25 per hectare. For jirayat I lands having assessment of Rs.1 to 1.50/- the reference Court has awarded market value of Rs.9,000/- per hectare. This instance is in respect of a land in a village in which some lands were submerged under the same Waghad Dam. Thus lands in villages Jalkhed can be compared with the lands at village Chachadgaon. : 16 : 16 : 16 : Considering the date of the said transaction at Exhibit 10, this sale instance will be relevant. 11. The other sale instance of Sale Deed dated Exhibit 18 is of land which is at village Konkangaon which is at a distance of 9 to 10 Kms from village Krishnagaon. The said sale instance is of 16th July, 1979 which is more than two years prior to the relevant date in this case and therefore, the same cannot be considered. Reliance has been placed on a certified copy of the judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.148 of 1982 dated 02nd March, 1984. The said judgment relates to lands at village Krishnagaon, Taluka Dindori which were acquired for Jalkhed project. The notification under section 4 of the said Act in the said case was issued on 26th September, 1986. Therefore, it is obvious that the said judgment cannot be a judgment relating to a similar situated or comparable land. Reliance is placed on a judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 1980 which relates to village Umarale, Taluka Dindori, District Nasik. This judgment has some relevance as the acquired land therein was notified for the purpose of submergence of Waghad dam i.e for the same purpose for which the lands subject matter of these appeals were acquired. Though in this case, the relevant date is of 03rd March, 1977, the market value fixed was at Rs.7500/- per hectare. The : 17 : 17 : 17 : said judgment at Exhibit 47 will have to be considered as a relevant piece of evidence as the land subject matter of the said judgment was acquired for the same project though the relevant date in that case is of the year 1977. 12. Reliance was placed by the