1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.545 OF 1998. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.II, Nashik). ..Appellant. v/s. Maharashtra Probhodhan Seva Mandal, through the Manager/Assistant Director, Nashik. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Y.S.Bhate, i/b. U.O.I., for Appellant. Mr. N.J. Patil, for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 3RD DECEMBER 2009. P.C. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award in Land Acquisition Reference No.43 of 1990 decided by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik. The learned Joint District Judge, Nashik in Reference No.43 of 1990 has enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired land from Rs.40/- per square meter to Rs. 173/- per square meter. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Maharashtra, through 2 the Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed the present appeal. Land bearing survey no.705/2/1 admeasuring 2H 16R situated within the limit of Nashik Municipal Corporation, District Nashik, which was acquired by the appellant for a local radio station. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 28th April 1988. After due inquiry, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared an award on 17th April 1989 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square meter. The claimant sought a reference in which compensation has been enhanced. Hence this appeal. 3. The acquired land was agricultural at the time of its acquisition. The evidence of Mr. Joseph Devla Kantela (CW 3) shows that the land is surrounded on all sides by developed land. Towards the North of the land, there is a housing society and a resident colony; towards the South, there is a State Transport Colony and towards the East and West, there are various constructions. At a distance of one and half kilometres, the Bhosla Military School is located and at a distance of one kilometre, the Maratha High School is located. The land in- question is in the proximity of a river. The learned Joint District Judge formed an opinion on the basis of comparable instances of 3 transactions within about 3 kilometres from the acquired land. 4. Two witnesses and the claimant himself, have deposed about transactions in respect of comparable lands. Land in survey no.707/1 which is a developed plot of land at a distance of one and a half kilometres admeasuring 420 square metres was sold for about Rs.80,000/- on 31st October 1984, at the rate of approximately Rs.192/- per square meter. That land is closer to the Nashik-Gangapur Road than the acquired land, though both pieces of lands are on the same side. Another comparable instance was sought to be relied upon but has been discarded by the learned Joint District Judge since it is found that it is not between a willing purchaser and seller. Comparable instance is in respect of a plot of land from survey no.709/4 sold in the year 1987, pursuant to an agreement which was entered into in the year 1984 for Rs.2,94,000/- by the owners in favour of a Co-operative Housing Society. That land is at a distance of 150 to 170 meters from the acquired land. The land surrounding the land which is sold appears to be the developed land. 5. The learned Joint District Judge has virtually relied on the sale instance of 31st October 1984 where the land was purchased at the rate of Rs.192 in respect of survey no.706 at 4 Exhibit 33. The learned Joint District Judge has taken note of the fact that the sale instances are in respect of developed plots of land, whereas the acquired land is undeveloped. Having regard to this, the learned Joint District Judge has deducted one-third from the value of the sale instance towards the development cost and has arrived at the rate of Rs.128/- per square meter. Thereupon, the adjustment has been made at the rate of 10% per annum for inflation. Thus, for a period of about three-and-a-half years, the Court has made an addition of about 35%, thus bringing the rate of the acquired land to Rs.173/- per square meter on or about 28th April 1988. There is a specific finding that the distance between the acquired land and the land in the sale instance, i.e. developed plot, is hardly about 300 meters. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant was not in a position to establish or demonstrate any appreciable difference in the value of the acquired land and the land in the sale instance. We see no reason to disturb this finding. 7. We are further in agreement with the finding of the learned Joint District Judge that the public purpose to convert acquired land to non-agricultural purpose does not make an appreciable difference, since the land nonetheless has a potential 5 for development being virtually surrounded on all sides by developed land and constructions. We thus, find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed without any orders as to costs. It is an admitted position that the respondent-claimant has withdrawn the amount deposited by the appellant in this Court within 20 weeks from 24th August 1998. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent is entitled to claim any interest for the period after the said withdrawal. 8. First Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs. [S.A. BOBDE, J.] [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]