:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.820 OF 1991 Shri. Indrasing Chandeasing Rajput, Aged 37, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Holnanthe,Tal.Shirpur,Dist,.Dhule. ..Appellant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.P.M.Shah for the Appellant. Mr. Bharat Mehta,A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 18th June,2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This is a first appeal impugning a judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge,S.D. Dhule on 22.12.1989 in Land Acquisition Reference No.4 of 1989. The facts of the case were as under. 2. That, in pursuance of Section 4 Notification published in the Govt. Gazette on 6.9.1979, the land admeasuring 40 Ares out of Gat No.34-2/B admeasuring 18-Acres of Village Ajande.Tal. Shirpur. District Dhule was acquired by the State. The Award was declared on 15.12.1981. The land was treated as Jirayat land and the rate of land was determined at Rs.22,000/- per hectare. The solatium was calculated at the rate of 15% of the market value as determined. :2: 3. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant preferred Land Acquisition Reference bearing No.4 of 1989 in the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Dhule. By the impugned judgment and order passed on 22.12.1989 the said reference was rejected. 4. I heard both the sides and perused the record. It appears from the record that the appellant could not prove a single instance transaction. He contended that he had exchanged his land in the year 1975 at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre but no registered document or even extract of register was produced to prove this fact. He examined one Dr.Khankari who claimed to have purchased 2-Acrea 10- Gunthas of land in the name of his wife Smt. Shailaja for an amount of Rs.49,000/- but even regarding this transaction neither the sale deed nor index II was produced. Faced with such nature of evidence the Advocate for the appellant raised only one point and contended that the land in question was wrongly treated as Jirayat land and ought to have been treated as Bagayat land. He contended that the 7/12 extract (Exh.12) which was the part of the record indicated that there was well in Gat No.34/2-B. It is accepted by the Trial court that there is a well on the aforesaid Gat number. The :3: said Gat number is however, huge piece of land admeasuring 18-Acres. The appellant in his oral evidence did not disclose that the well was in the acquired land. In fact, in the cross examination, he categorically admitted that there was no well situated on the portion of the land which has been acquired by the Government. The witness on behalf of the State, in fact, categorically denied that the acquired land was irrigated with well water. The appellant himself did not claim that the acquired land is to be irrigated by well water. The Government’s witness had stated that he has personally inspected the land and asserted that he had found it to be dry crop land. The 7/12 extract also does not specifically indicate that the acquired land was irrigated land. In view of the above evidence, it cannot be said that the evidence supports the contention of the appellant that the acquired land was Bagayat land. Even in respect of the other part of Gat No.34/2-B crop taken appears to be seasonable crop except in a small area. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the appeal and the appeal therefore, stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)