1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 1996 Malharrao s/o Kerbarao Cherampalle, age 46 Yrs. occup. agril. r/o Tupdal, (BK) Taluka .Mukhed,Dist. Appellant/ Nanded. ori.claimant versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector,Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Respondents/ Officer, P.T. and M.I.W. ori.Resps. Nanded. ------------------------------------------------------ Shri M.M.Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for appellant. Shri S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1. ------------------------------------------------------ Coram : P.R.Borkar, J. Date : May 03, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 01. This is an appeal preferred by the original claimant being dissatisfied by compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Biloli, in L.A.R. No.35 of 1993 decided on 19.7.1995 for the land of claimant acquired by the State Government. Reference Court awarded Rs.11,000/= per hectare in stead of Rs.50,000/= per hectare. 2 02. Some of the facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as under;; It is the case of the present appellant- claimant that his lands survey No.53/A admeasuring 1 hectare 98 R., survey No.53/B admeasuring 90 R. and Survey No.53/C admeasuring 94 R. of village Tupdal, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded were acquired by the State Government for Jamkhed Medium Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25.12.1985 and the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19.12.1988, granting compensation at Rs.8423/= per hectare. Being aggrieved thereby, the claimant filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court enhanced compensation and awarded rate of Rs. 11,000/= per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the same, this appeal is filed by the claimant. 03. Heard Shri M.M.Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.N. Kendre, learned A.G.P. for the respondents. 04. Advocate Shri M.M.Patil for the appellant relied upon judgment of this court in First Appeal No. 3 64 of 1996 decided on April 22, 2010 (Allabaksha s/o Maulana vs. The State of Maharashtra). In that case, this court awarded compensation at Rs.20,000/= per hectare in stead of Rs.10,000/= per hectare. The sale instance in that case dated 24.2.1984 from village Hasnal produced at Exh.29 was considered. Land admeasuring 81 R. was sold for Rs.16,500/= per hectare. 05. Both sides have taken me through impugned judgment and other record. It may be noted that acquisition of lands in both i.e. present appeal and first appeal No.64 of 1996 were from same village Tupdal, Taluka Mukhed and they were acquired for the same project i.e. Jamkhed Medium Project. The Land Acquisition Officer has classified the lands in different groups on the basis of their revenue assessment. It is not disputed that the lands acquired were dry lands. Above referred sale instance dated 24.2.1984, which was relied upon in First Appeal No.64 of 1996, was also relied upon in the present case before the reference court. It is clear from the record produced before this court that the lands situated at village Hasnal, Tupdal, Gondi and Pali were acquired for the same project and sale instance 4 from village Hasnal, therefore, can be accepted as comparable sale instance. The sale deed at Exh.29 shows that it was in respect of dry land, therefore, can be accepted to be comparable with the land acquired in the present case. In fact, revenue assessment of the land involved in the sale instance referred to was Rs.1/= for 81 R. So, the lands acquired in the present case, which were included in group "C" were having better revenue assessment ranging between Rs.2.51 to Rs.3.75. So, considering the land revenue assessments, it can be said that the lands in the present case were better quality lands than the land involved in the sale instance relied upon. 06. In my opinion, considering that the land involved in the sale instance referred to in First Appeal No.64 of 1996 and also the land acquired in this case, they are comparable. We can, therefore, safely accept the judgment and award passed by this court in First Appeal No.64 of 1990 decided on April 22, 2010 and award the same market rate to the claimant in the present case. 07. In the result, first appeal is allowed 5 partly. The judgment and award passed by reference court on 19.7.1995 in L.A.R. No.35 of 1993 is modified and it is directed that the appellant- claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/= per hectare in stead of Rs.10,000/= per hectare awarded by the reference court. The appellant shall also be entitled to solatium, additional component of 12 per cent as per Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest as awarded by reference court on enhanced compensation. 08. First Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. pnd/fa502.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)