1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2010 Namdeo Pandurang Matole .... APPELLANT V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Others. .... RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.V. Ingale, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19/11/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. Admit. 2. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The record and proceedings is already received. 3. The present appellant is the original claimant, who had filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ( For short, ‘ said Act ’ ) being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer ( For short, ‘ S.L.A.O. ’ ). 4. The land of the appellant admeasuring 30 R. out of G.No. 356 situated at Salegaon was acquired by the respondent-State for the purpose of construction of percolation tank. The S.L.A.O. had awarded compensation @ Rs. 17,000/- per Hector. The Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 17,900/- per Hector. Being dis-satisfied with the said amount, the claimant has filed the present Appeal. 2 5. Mr. Ingale, the learned counsel for the appellant states that 3 References were decided by common Judgment by the Reference Court, wherein the sale deeds were produced on record, which were prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the said Act, which shows that the lands were sold and purchased at Rs. 40,000/- per Acre. There was no impediment to consider the said sale deeds to award compensation amount to the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that even appellant’s land was bagayat land, as the existence of well is not disputed and even for some period dwell crops were taken in the land. According to the learned counsel, the Reference Court should have awarded compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per Acre. 6. Mr. R.K. Ladda, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader contended that the present appellant had not produced any evidence on record to substantiate his claim. The sale deeds referred in the Judgment of the Reference Court, were produced by other claimants. There is no evidence to show that the land of the claimant which is acquired is similarly situated to the lands under the sale deeds produced by other claimants. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader further submitted that the sale deeds showing the price of the land as Rs. 40,000/- per Acre is of very small area i.e. 4 R. and 6 R. only and that too of bagayat land. The same can not form basis to award compensation to the present appellant. According to the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, the Reference Court has awarded just and proper amount as compensation. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings. 8. As far as sale deeds of 4 R. and 6 R. is concerned, the same is in respect of bagayat land and of a small area, which certainly can not be considered for awarding the compensation amount to the appellant. One sale deed of 32 R. land is also produced on record, which is prior to the notification under Section 4 of the said Act. The said sale deed of G.No. 510 of the same village admeasuring 32 R. was sold at Rs. 11,000/- vide sale deed dated 2/12/1995. The said sale 3 deed is prior to one year of notification under section 4 of the said Act. It is also a fact that in the land of the appellant, which is acquired, there was well situated and for some year he had taken dwell crops in one year. As such, there would be no impediment to consider the said sale deed of G.No. 510 admeasuring 32 R. which is sold at Rs. 11,000/-, which would be about Rs. 13,750/- per Acre. The sale deed is prior to one year. As such 10 % amount can be added to grant enhanced compensation. 9. Though the said sale deed is not produced by the present appellant, but the fact remains that three References were decided by the common Judgment and the same was before the Reference Court. In light of the same, there would be no impediment to award compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 15,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs. 11,250/- for 30 R. land. 10. In the result, I pass following order. (I) The Appeal is partly allowed. (II) The Judgment and Award passed by the lower appellate Court is modified. (III) The appellant shall be entitled for the compensation amount of his acquired land at Rs. 11,250/- for 30 R. land. (IV) Rest of the reliefs granted by the Reference Court are maintained. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/FA 406.2010