fast27988.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 27988 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer Majalgaon Canal Division no. 5 .. APPELLANT VERSUS Saheba s/o Nivruti Dugane .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 27994 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer Majalgaon Canal Division no. 5 .. APPELLANT VERSUS Soma Umaji Rathod & another .. RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 27955 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer Majalgaon Canal Division no. 5 .. APPELLANT VERSUS Saheba Shankar Rathod & others .. RESPONDENTS fast27988.09 2 Mr. Ruturaj Patil, advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Patil, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1 These are the appeals presented by the acquiring body raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the 3 rd Ad-hoc District Judgde, Ambajogai in LAR No. 183/1999 and other companion matters, decided on 29-3-2008. 2 Agricultural lands belonging to the claimants came to be acquired for construction of canal. Small area ranging from 14 R to 68 R came to be acquired by the acquiring body. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4-3-1993 and, after following the procedure prescribed under the Act, award came to be declared on 19-2-1997. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 219/- Rs. 269/- and Rs. 340/- per R. Claimants being dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate applications seeking reference of the matter to the civil court for determination of market fast27988.09 3 value of the acquired lands. Claimants examined themselves and deposed about the quality and fertility of the lands acquired. Claimants have also placed on record evidence in the form of comparable sale instance. Sale instance dated 28-4-1993 is in respect of land situate in the same village. Land covered by the sale instance was sold prior to issuance of section 4 notification for consideration of Rs. 1509/- per R. Reference court, considering the evidence in the form of comparable sale instance and on scrutinising the oral evidence, reached conclusion based on certain guess work that compensation receivable by the claimants as per market rate shall be Rs. 550/- per R. Claimants were held entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs. 340/-, Rs. 219/- and Rs. 269/- per R. 3 I have perused the judgment and award passed by the reference court and also scrutinised the relevant record made available by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while hearing the appeals. I am of the opinion that the reasons recorded by the reference court are logical and proper and the enhancement in the amount of compensation directed is also quite moderate. It is also worth noting that small pieces of agricultural lands have been acquired for construction of canal and enhancement in the amount of compensation that has been directed by the reference court fast27988.09 4 is quite marginal. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in the appeals. Appeals are devoid of substance hence stand dismissed. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb