1 FA 110.89 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 110 OF 1989 The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Collector of Sangli. ... Appellant Versus Bandopant Dattatraya Tamhankar and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant. Mr. S.G.Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 4-A to 4-D and 6. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Appellant – State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 17 th September, 1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sangli in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 2 FA 110.89 “the said Act”). The land subject matter of acquisition is admeasuring 39 Ares out of R.S.No.91 situated within the Municipal Limits of Miraj City. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 8 th July, 1980. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 16 th July, 1981. The said award under Section 11 of the said Act was not accepted by the Respondents – claimants and at their instance, a reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made. By the award under Section 11 of the said Act, market value was offered at the rate of Rs.35,365/- per hectare. In the reference, the Respondents claimed market value at the rate of Rs.5/- per square feet. By the impugned judgment and award, the leaned trial Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2/- per square feet and granted statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the said Act. 3 The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant – State of Maharashtra submitted that as the award under Section 11 of the said Act was made prior to 30 th April, 1981, statutory benefits under Section 23(1- A) of the said Act could not have been granted. He submitted that the 3 FA 110.89 Reference Court could not have relied upon the sale instance of the Agreement dated 14 th April, 1981 in respect of the property of the Respondents as the same was brought into existence for ensuring that the Respondents get more market value for the acquired land. He submitted that when the agreement for sale was executed in the said case, the land subject matter of sale was agricultural land, which was converted much later into a non-agricultural land. He submitted that the sale instance cannot be an instance of a comparable land. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment and award. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The entire controversy revolves around the agreement for sale dated 13 th April, 1981, which is at Exhibit – 23. Under the said Agreement, the Respondents agreed to sell their land bearing R.S. No.190 to Kanya Mahavidyalaya. The price set out in the said agreement was Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e. Rs.5/- per square feet. The sale-deed was executed on 11 th April, 1985. The Respondent No.1 who stepped into witness box 4 FA 110.89 stated that the land bearing R.S. No.190 was adjoining land. He stated that the Respondents received notice for receiving compensation in the present case on 13 th October, 1981. The second witness examined by the Respondents is Smt. Usha Vasant Dave who also stated that there was an agreement dated 13 th April, 1981 executed. She also stated that the sale-deed on the basis of the said Agreement was executed on 11 th April, 1985. The said witness admitted that the expenses of the sale-deed were to be borne by the Respondents i.e. the sellers. In the sale-deed, it was shown that out of the consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as expenses of the sale. There is no cross- examination of the Respondent No.1 on his statement that the said agreement for sale is in respect of the adjoining land. It must be noted here that both the witnesses examined disclosed that the sale-deed was ultimately executed on 11 th April, 1985 and in fact, a certified copy of Index-II in respect of the said sale-deed has been placed on record and has been marked as Exhibit – 24. Infact, the second witness examined by the Respondents produced the said sale-deed, which is at Exhibit – 25. Thus, the submission that it is not a bona-fide transaction and the 5 FA 110.89 transaction brought into existence for obtaining enhanced compensation cannot be accepted. The market value reflected from the said sale transaction after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/- for expenses comes to Rs.3.06/- per square feet. Considering the large area of the acquired land, the market value has been reduced to 2/3 i.e. Rs.2/- per square feet. Thus, in case of adjoining land, the market value offered in April 1981 was Rs.3/- per square feet. In the circumstances, the market value fixed at the rate of Rs.2/- square feet as of July 1980 cannot be faulted with. 5 In the present case, award under Section 11 of the said Act has been made prior to 30 th April, 1982. Hence, the Respondents will not be entitled to statutory benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The market value fixed by the learned trial Court is confirmed ; ii. That part of the impugned award which grants statutory benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land 6 FA 110.89 Acquisition Act, 1894 is quashed and set aside ; iii. Rest of the award made by the learned trial Court is maintained ; iv. The appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]