( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 177 OF 1993 Vishwanath s/o. Laxman Hangekar .. Appellant Age. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Rajur, Tal. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. The Chief Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Nashik Division, Nashik. Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate for the appellant. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State. Shri H.T. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 29.06.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the original claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award ( 2 ) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, in Land Reference No. 21 of 1989, on 11.11.1992. 2. Now it is no more disputed that the land belonging to the appellant bearing Survey No.33, admeasuring 73 R situated at village Rajur, Tal. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar was acquired for 33/11 KV Electric Sub- Station at Rajur, for the purpose of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27.11.1980 and the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) on 08.11.1982. The S.L.A.O. awarded rate of Rs.58.68 per R and total compensation determined was Rs. 4274=15. Being aggrieved by the market rate awarded by the S.L.A.O., present appellant filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and same came to be heard and decided by the learned Civil Judge. 3. The learned Civil Judge awarded rate at the rate of Rs.300/- per Guntha. Being aggrieved by the said market rate, this appeal is filed. ( 3 ) 4. According to Adv. Shri Bedre for the appellant, the appellant has produced sale instance of land which was one furlong away from acquired land and rate was Rs. 1000/- per Guntha. The same evidence was discarded and only rate of Rs. 300/- per Guntha was awarded. It is also said that another sale instance of 13.06.1978 of adjoining village was also not taken into consideration and therefore this appeal is preferred. 5. A.G.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for respondent No. 1 and Adv. Shri H.T. Joshi for respondent No.2 stated that what was awarded by the Reference Court was proper and the acquiring body ought to have been made party by the Reference Court. In the appeal filed by the appellant there was no prayer made by the respondents even by way of cross-objection that the rate awarded by the Reference Court is very excessive or exorbitant or they want to lead evidence and the matter needs remand. So, this appeal can be disposed of after considering the evidence on record. ( 4 ) 6. Adv. Shri V.S. Bedre has pointed out to me sale instance dated 13.06.1978 produced by the claimant/ appellant. It was not taken into consideration by the Reference Court on the ground that the sale deed produced on record was not duly proved. What is produced on record is the original sale-deed. It bears endorsement of registration by the Sub-Registrar on its first and last pages. Absolutely, there is no reason to dispute its genuineness. The said sale instance dated 13.06.1978 is of land of adjacent village Vithe, Tal. Akole. 51 R land was sold for Rs. 20,000/-. So, the rate comes to about Rs.400/- per R. It is jirayat agricultural land. So in this case same can be considered as sale instance of comparable land. 7. The certificate issued by Tahsildar at Exh.20 is rightly disbelieved by the Reference Court. The Tahsildar suggested that prevailing rate was Rs. 770/- per R. This is an opinion of the Tahsildar, who was not an expert. It is not that the Tahsildar was appointed as an Arbitrator and the document is an award passed by him in that capacity. ( 5 ) 8. So far as sale instance proved by witness Subhash Maid is concerned, he stated that he has purchased 7 Gunthas land at Rajur for Rs. 7000/-, out of Survey No. 7/1B. That was sale-deed of 1979. However, it is brought on record that the purchase was made by witness Subhash Maid for starting a hotel business. The plot purchased was near the Kolhar-Ghoti road and there were shops, wooden stalls etc. nearby it. On the other hand the acquired land was away from it. That area near acquired land was not yet developed and that is admitted in the cross-examination by witness Subhash. Moreover, what was purchased was jirayat agricultural land. 9. The learned Civil Judge has considered various aspects relating to the sale instance. He observed that the acquired land was away from the developed area and growth & development at Rajur was very slow, it being remote place. He also said that the instance was in respect of very small area compared to big acquired land and deducted about 2/3 and awarded Rs.300/- per Guntha. ( 6 ) 10. In my opinion, though the acquired land was away from the land purchased by Subhash Maid and though it may not be useful for business or other purpose at that time still it cannot be said to be far away from developed area. Since it was large tract, for development of the site by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity, there must be deduction. In my opinion, deduction of 2/3 is too high. I am more inclined to believe sale instance of 13.06.1978, which was of jirayat land of adjoining village and atleast the same rate should have been awarded. 11. In this view of the matter, this appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that instead of rate of Rs.300/- per R, rate of Rs.400/- per R be awarded to the appellant for the acquired land and market value be determined. The appellant would also be entitled to claim other statutory benefits such as 30% amount as solatium, as well as 12% component under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the additional amount that may be payable. ( 7 ) 12. The original sale-deed dated 13.06.1978 be returned to purchaser named therein and a copy thereof be kept on record. The First Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/fa177.93