1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 35553 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus 1. Tanaji Dagadu Shinde Died Through L.R.'s and another .. Respondents Shri S. K. Tambe, A. G. P. for the Applicant/State. Shri B. K. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. The appeal is taken up for admission. Heard Shri Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Shri B. K. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. By the present appeal, the appellant/State challenges the award passed in Land Reference No. 211/1993 dated 03rd April, 1999. Shri Tambe, learned A.G.P. submits that learned reference Court committed an error in enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector. He submits that the compensation was awarded by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 108/- per R so far dry lands are concerned, Rs. 270/- per R so far as semi irrigated lands are 2 concerned and Rs. 360/- in so far irrigated lands are concerned. He submits that the impugned order is there not sustainable in law. 2. Shri Pawar learned counsel for the respondents submits that learned reference Court has given cogent reasons, while allowing the claims and no interference is warranted. 3. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned reference Court. The learned reference Court has relied on the evidence of witness Bhausaheb Shinde, who has signed the sale deed which is executed on 03rd January, 1994. In the sale deed, as per the sale transaction 81R dry land was sold at rate of Rs. 26,000/-. The learned reference Court has found that evidence of this witness was unshakable. Therefore, learned reference Court relied on the evidence of this witness so as to determine the value of comparable sale transaction. On the basis of the sale deed, which was duly proved by said Bhausaheb Shinde and since the sale transaction was immediately prior to the date of notification under Section 4, the amount of compensation is arrived at. 4. The learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that compensation to be awarded so far the dry land is concerned to Rs. 320/- per R. Said amount has been arrived at relying on the amount of sale deed of Rs. 26,000/- of 81R. Taking into consideration this aspect learned reference Court further found 3 that the compensation to be awarded to semi irrigated land would be one and half times of the dry land and as such arrived at Rs. 480/- per R for semi irrigated lands. In so far as irrigated lands are concerned, the amount twice of the amount of dry land, i. e. Rs. 640/- per R, has been found to be reasonable. Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the learned reference Court, we are of the considered view that, the learned reference Court has considered the evidence on record in its correct perspective. The enhanced compensation is awarded on the basis of comparable sale transaction duly proved by the witness examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is rejected. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/July 09