1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2011 The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur, Dist:Latur. ...APPELLANTS (Ori.Respondent No.3) VERSUS 1. Lalitabai w/o Vaijinath Swamy, Age 40 yrs. Occ: House hold, r/o Mukramabad, Tq.Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. (Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra Per District Collector,Collectorate, Nanded. (Original Respdt.No.1) 3. The Land Acquisition Officer & Deputy Collector at Degloor. (Original Respdt.No.2) ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.V.D.Rakh, AGP for respondent State. ... CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 28/7/2011 *** 2 PER COURT : 1. This is an appeal preferred by the acquiring body - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur, Dist.Latur - raising an exception to the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.12/1998, thereby granting enhancement in the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. The acquiring body - appellant herein - acquired an area to the extent of one and half Gunthas of land belonging to the claimant for public purpose. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs.36,500/- per Hectare to the claimant. 2. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, tendered an application seeking reference for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The Reference Court, upon considering the material placed on record, allowed the Reference application and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,200/- per Guntha i.e. Rs.3,20,000/- per hectare. The claimant is held entitled to receive enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,252.25/-. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Dande, Counsel appearing for the appellant. 3 None appears for the respondent though served. Shri Dande, Counsel, vehemently contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is without any basis. The Counsel has invited my attention to a judgment in First Appeal No.285/2003 and other companion appeals. It is contended that this Court, while considering the appeals arising out of the same award, is pleased to quash and set aside the award and directed recovery of enhanced amount of compensation paid to the claimants. 3. I have considered the submissions advanced by the Counsel appearing for the appellant. In the instant matter the claimant is held to be entitled to get a paltry sum of Rs. 4252/- by way of enhanced compensation. The judgment of the Reference Court is delivered in the year 1999 whereas the appeal is presented in the year 2003. Considering the fact that the claimant is held entitled to receive a paltry sum and further considering the time exhausted in pronouncement of the order and the consideration of the instant appeal, I do not deem it necessary to cause any interference in this appeal. It is also made clear that the order passed in the instant matter shall not be construed as a precedent in other appeals arising out of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the questioned acquisition, which 4 shall be dealt with on its own merits. 4. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal presented by the acquiring body does not require favourable consideration. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [R.M.BORDE, J.] agp/1124-11fa