1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 OF 1993 1. Shri. Dashrath Vithoba Pansare, Age: 51 years, 2. Shri. Madhav Vithoba Pansare, Age: 45 years, Both Occ: Agri., R/o. Dhandarfal (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra. Respondent ... Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for appellants. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for respondent. ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : . This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner in Land Reference No. 52/1989. 2. The appellants are original claimants. Their agricultural land bearing Survey No. 242/3 2 situated at village Dhandarfal was acquired for construction of a percolation tank. The acquired land consisted of 1 Hector and 22 Ares area. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Government in the year 1982. The S.L.A.O., Ahmednagar rendered award on 20-09-1986. The S.L.A.O. determined market value of the land @ Rs. 4000/- Per Acre. The appellants were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them. They accepted the compensation under protest after receiving notice under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. They filed Reference Application alleging that market value of the acquired land was Rs.50,000/- Per Hector. The Reference Application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was heard together with another Reference Application bearing L.R. No.53/1989 filed by one Gangadhar Bapuji Gorde. It appears that common evidence was recorded in both the Reference Applications. 3 3. The respondent - State denied all the material averments made by the claimants. It was contended that market value was properly determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) under the award. 4. The Reference Court came to the conclusion, on basis of material placed before it, that the appellants were entitled to seek compensation @ Rs.10,000/- Per Acre. It was the case of the appellants that there is a well situated in the acquired land but no compensation was awarded in respect of the acquisition of the said well. The Reference Court, however, rejected such contention. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.P. for the respondent - State. 6. So far as the existence of well in the acquired land is concerned, there is a vague statement of P.W. Madhav in this behalf. The 4 entries in the 7/12 extracts ( Exhibit-11 and Exhibit - 12 ) go to show that in other rights column, the entry was recorded to the effect that there was a new well of Kachcha nature/construction. Admittedly, the appellants were drawing water from canal of Adhala Irrigation Project. No effort was made to appoint any Court Commissioner so as to verify the fact regarding the existence of the well in the acquired land and the value thereof. The statement of P.W. Madhav also does not show as to what could be valuation of the said Kachcha well. The explanation "kachcha well" is too slippery. It could mean a mere small ditch called as well without any water resource available to it. Obviously, the testimony of P.W. Madhav could not be held as sufficient so as to consider the claim for award of compensation on account of acquisition of so called well. 7. On close scrutiny of testimony of P.W. 5 Madhav, it may be gathered that he asserted that the value of the acquired land was much more because it is a bagayat land. He deposed that the land was having market price @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. His version purports to show that he used to cultivate sugarcane, vegetables, groundnuts, etc. in the acquired land. The entries in the 7/12 extracts ( Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-12 ) however, indicate that till 1983-84 crops like Bajra were being cultivated in the said land. What appears from the record is that availability of canal water, the appellants started cultivation of vegetables like onion, tomato, etc. This seems to be the fact situation since 1985-86 onwards. The acquisition was however made in 1982. Therefore, juxtaposition available at the time of acquisition is required to be considered. 8. As regards comparable sale instances, the appellants did not file any separate documentary evidence and relied upon the documents which 6 were filed in L.R.No. 53/1989. The cross examination of P.W. Madhav reveals that the acquired land is adjacent to hillock. He admits that he did not give written information to the S.L.A.O. about the claim regarding bagayat type of cultivation of the land. He admitted that the irrigation available from Adhala Irrigation Project is only to the extent of Rubby season. Needless to say that there is no permanent water source available. There is also no reliable evidence to show that the appellants were cultivating sugar cane crop in the acquired land. 9. So far as the sale instances are concerned, the Reference Court seems to have consider the documentary evidence in context of L.R. No. 53/1989. The sale instance regarding purchase of the land by one Indubai was quoted. However, the vendor or the vendee of the said transaction were not put in the witness box. The Reference Court also noticed that the said Indubai had 7 purchased only 50 Ares land for consideration of Rs.25,000/-. It was a small strip of land. It was found that the small strip of land purchased by Indubai was irrigated land of a good quality. Obviously, such sale instance could not be regarded as proper for the purpose of comparison. It is well known that small strip of land fetch higher market rate due to competition of adjoining holders of land to purchase such small strip, with a view to annex the same to their big pieces of the lands. In my opinion, the Reference Court has duly considered the relevant evidence tendered by the claimants. There appears no substantial reason to interfere with the findings of fact as rendered by the Reference Court. 10. In the result, the appeal is destitute of merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] sut/NOV09/fa307.93