1 FA 382.92-Indapur ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Gopal Dattatraya Nadgouda. ... Respondent ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22 nd June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Called out for final hearing. Heard the learned AGP appearing for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondent. 2 The Appellant – State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 20 th December, 1989 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2 FA 382.92-Indapur 3 The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No.745 admeasuring 1027.36 square meters situated at Indapur within the limits of the Municipal Council of Indapur. The notification dated 30 th April, 1982 issued under Section 6 of the said Act read with Section 126 (4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was published in Gazette dated 13 th May, 1982. The acquisition was for the purposes of erecting a building for post office. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 31 st December, 1983. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered market value at the rate of Rs.8.50 per square meter. As the said award was not accepted, a reference was made at the instance of the Respondent. In the reference, total market value was claimed at the rate of Rs.50,000/-. The Respondent claimed 50% share in the compensation. The Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.50/- per square meter. 4 The leaned AGP appearing for the Appellant has taken the Court through the judgment, notes of evidence and the documents on record. He submitted that the only sale instance relied upon by the 3 FA 382.92-Indapur Respondent was of sale-deed dated 19 th August, 1976. Thus, the sale- deed was executed nearly six years prior to the relevant date. He submitted that there is no evidence of comparability of the land subject matter of the sale-deed. He submitted that the Respondent – claimant did not discharge the burden on him. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the record. The only witness examined by the Respondent is his son. He is also his constituted attorney. He stated that the Respondent was claiming 50% share in the acquired land. He stated that the acquired land was an open land. He stated that he was going to examine an expert valuer as a witness. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had not appointed any expert. He admitted that the acquired land was situated in the old Gaothan area where the roads are of a very narrow width. He admitted that during last eight to ten years, development had taken place in the town of the Indapur towards the side of the highway. He admitted that the acquired land was situated at a distance of one kilometer from the highway. Perusal of the record shows that apart from 4 FA 382.92-Indapur the said witness, the Respondent has not examined any other witness. As far as the sale instances are concerned, there are two sale instances on record. The first sale instance is of sale-deed dated 14 th August, 1980. The said sale-deed is at Exhibit-22. The area of the land covered by the sale-deed is 20 Ares, which was sold for the price of Rs.17,000/-. The said sale-deed is produced by the Government Pleader, which reflects market value of Rs.8.50/- per square meter, which in any event will not help the Respondent – claimant. In fact the award under Section 11 of the said Act in the present case is based on the said sale instance. 6 The Respondent produced sale instance of sale-deed dated 19 th August, 1976, which is at Exhibit-26. As far as evidence of the constituted attorney of the Respondent is concerned, he has made no reference to the sale-deed and he has not even stated that the sale-deed land was comparable to the acquired land. In fact, he has not even made a reference to the said instance. He has not examined any witness. In fact, there is no evidence at all on the aspect of comparability. As stated earlier, the date of the sale-deed is dated 19 th August, 1976 and relevant 5 FA 382.92-Indapur date is in the present case is 30 th April, 1982. The leaned Judge has granted escalation at the rate of 12% per annum on the basis of the market value reflected from the sale-deed. The area of the sale-deed land is only 137 square meters and the area of the acquired land is 1027.36 square meters. The said sale-deed could not have been taken into consideration unless there was even a semblance of evidence regarding comparability. There is a complete absence of such evidence. 7 The Respondent – claimant was in a position of the plaintiff, who was under an obligation to adduce evidence and to prove that the amount offered under Section 11 of the said Act was inadequate. He has not discharged the said burden. The trial Court has committed an error by placing reliance on the sale-deed at Exhibit – 26. There was complete absence of evidence as regard its comparability. Hence, the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. 8 Accordingly, I pass the following order: 6 FA 382.92-Indapur i. The impugned judgment and award dated 20 th December, 1989 is quashed and set aside and Land Acquisition Reference No.63 of 1984 stands dismissed; ii. The appeal is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]