1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13. FA/1498/2009 WITH FA/1499/2009 WITH FA/1500/2009 WITH FA/1501/2009 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs. R.R.Mane, AGP for the appellants. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 15th July, 2009 ... P.C.:- 1. Heard learned A.G.P. The matter is finally heard at admission stage. For the orders to be passed, record need not be called. 2. The order in a common judgment, dated 9.7.2004, covering different LAR Nos. 236/2002, 237/2002, 238/2002, 239/2002 are subject of challenge in the First Appeal. 3. I need not to ponder upon dates of acquisition, the ownership of the respective claimants and passing of the award by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer. The short controversy in the matter revolves, whether the learned ReferenceCourt was justified in enhancing 2 the amount from Rs.550/- per R. to Rs.800/- per R. for the acquired property. 4. Learned Judge, while evaluating the enhancement, had an occasion to browse the evidence of PW No.2 Manikrao recorded in LAR No.237/2002 wherein it is indicated that 11 R. of the property was purchased for Rs.27,700/- under registered sale deed dt.22.7.1997, situated at Kuntephal. The sale deed is at Exh.20. This sale deed is naturally before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. By calculation, the market price per R. comes to Rs.2518/-. However, this land was under irrigation and nearby a percolation tank at Kuntephal. The learned Judge also given thought to the fact that the area of the sale deed Exh.20 was restricted to 11 R., and since it was near to a percolation tank has more potentiality and, consequently, did not agree to consider the parameter of price to be Rs.2518/- per R. The evidence of PW No.3 Khandu indicated his brother sold 1 acre land to one Ganpat Mumse for Rs. 41,000/- on 11.4.1997. The said transaction was witnessed by him, duly proved, through Exh.19. However, it was for seasonally irrigated lands and crops. The valuation of the said lands was Rs.1025/- per R. It is from the same village Khuntephal where the acquired property situates. The sale deed is apparently before the date of notification. These aspects having considered 3 thoroughly by the learned Judge, does not indicate that there is any excessive enhancement in the award. The other statutory benefits need no interference. Appeals dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/fa1498-09gr