1 fa1379-80 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1379 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. Dasharath Bhau Satpute ...Respondent ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1380 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. Dattu Bhau Satpute ...Respondent Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the appellant in both appeals None for the respondent in both the appeals CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 13, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned A.G.P for the appellant. These two appeals can be disposed of by a common Judgment as the same take exception to the common Judgment delivered in L.A.R Nos.28 and 29 of 1987 which are references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 L.A.R.No.28 of 1987 relates to the land bearing Gat no.359 (Part 2) admeasuring 0.99 Ares and Gat no.424/3/5 admeasuring 0.22 Ares situated at Indapur, Taluka Indapur, District Pune. The land subject matter of the L.A.R.No.29 of 1987 is bearing Gat no.359/3 admeasuring 0.99 Ares and Gat no.424/3/5 part admeasuring 0.20 Ares. 3 Notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 2nd August 1984. As the respondents claimants did not accept the amount offered by the Award under section 11 of the said Act, at their instance, references were made. By the impugned Award, market value has been 2 fa1379-80 fixed at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare and statutory benefits under section 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act have been granted. 4 The learned A.G.P has taken the Court through the impugned Judgment. He submitted that the sale instance relied upon by the respondents were pre notification sale instances dated 14 th August 1980, 20 th August 1980, 13 th January 1981, 5th January 1982, 29th April 1982 and 21st April 1983. he submitted that the market value as on 2nd August 1984 could not have been determined on the basis of the said sale instances. He submitted that thus reliance could not have been placed on the said sale instances. 5 I have considered the submissions. As stated earlier, six sale instances were relied upon by the respondents-claimants. Perusal of the evidence of the respondent in First Appeal no.1379 of 2002 shows that the lands subject matter of the sale instances which were bearing Survey no.549 were situated at the distance of 1 Kilometer from the acquired land. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that there is no cross examination made on this aspect. Therefore, the lands subject matter of the six sale instances were situated in the vicinity of the acquired land and the said sale instances were of jirayat land. 6 Paragraph 21 of the impugned Judgment reads thus : 21 The rates per hector of the lands under the six sales are different. In the first sale instance the rate was Rs.85,000/- per hector; in the second, Rs.1,20,000/- lacs per hector; in the third instance Rs.78,500/- per hector; 3 fa1379-80 in the fourth Rs.1,00,000/- per hector and in the 5 th and 6 th the rate was Rs.95,000/- per hectare. Thus, arriving at the proper market value it would be advisable to take the average of these sale instances. The average rate of these sale instances would come to around Rs.94,000/- per hector. The claimants have claimed the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hector which is quite just and proper. Therefore, the market value of the acquired lands under references ought to have been Rs.90,000/- per hector and not 8 or 9 thousand per hector as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The market value of the acquired land, therefore, shall have to be calculated at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hector. 7 The market value reflected from the closest sale instance in the point of time was Rs.95,000/- per Hectare. However, the learned Judge has adopted a method of taking average of all six sale instances and has come to the conclusion that the market value deserves to be fixed at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare. Though, the sale instances are pre-notification sale instances, no escalation was granted by the Trial Court. Considering the evidence of the respondent in First Appeal no.1379 of 2002, I find no error in the approach of the trial Court. There is no dispute as regards grant of statutory benefits. 8 Hence, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE