ash 1 fa-523.97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.523 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Shri Ramdas Vangram Bondkule alias Dnyneshwer Sonu Ramane. .. Respondent -- Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard learned AGP for the Appellant. By the impugned judgment and award dated 12th September, 1995 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik, the Reference made at the instance of the Respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been partly allowed. 2. The acquisition relates to the land bearing Survey No.99, admeasuring 2 Hectare and 53 Ares situated at village Ravalgaon, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik. Out of the said land, an area of 5 Ares was potkharaba land. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 1st March, 1984 which was published in the official ash 2 fa-523.97 gazette on 26th April, 1984. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 7th June, 1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer classified the acquired land as falling in Group-II and offered the market value at Rs.9,000/- per Hectare. As the said market value was not accepted by the Respondent, at his instance, the reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made in which the market value was claimed at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per Hectare. The Respondent claimed market value at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per Hectare for potkharaba land. The learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.22,500/- per Hectare. For potkharaba land, the market value has been fixed at Rs.2,000/- per Hectare. 3, The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant submitted that the burden was on the Respondent-Claimant to prove that the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. He submitted that there is no evidence adduced of the comparable sale instances from the same village. He submitted that there is no basis for fixing the market value at Rs.22,500/- per Hectare. He submitted that the market value fixed for potkharaba land is excessive. None appears for the Respondent. 2. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. ash 3 fa-523.97 Perusal of the record shows that by the impugned judgment and award, the Land Acquisition Reference No.986 of 1990 subject matter of this Appeal was decided along with the Land Acquisition Reference No.987 of 1990. In the said reference, one Balu Dagu Sangale was examined who was a vendor under the sale transaction dated 7th March, 1984 by which the said Balu sold an area of 1 Hectare and 98 Ares from the land bearing Gat No.65 and an area of 1 Hectare and 21 Ares from Gat No. 74 at Village Bhagur. The market value reflected from the said transaction is Rs.22,500/-. The witness deposed that the quality of the acquired land was superior to the land sold by him. It has come on record in the evidence of the said witness that the distance between the acquired land and the land which was sold on 7th March, 1984 is only one furlong. The witness stated that the land sold by him was Jirayat land. It must be noted here that even the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation in respect of the acquired land by treating the same as Jirayat land. 3. In absence of any comparable sale instance of a land from the village Ravalgaon, the sale instance of a land which was situated in adjoining village in a close proximity of the land acquired is certainly relevant. In the case in hand, the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 26th April, 1984. The said transaction relied upon by the Respondent-Claimant is of 7th March, 1984. The said sale ash 4 fa-523.97 transaction is in respect of a land situated in a close proximity. The said land as well as the acquired land were Jirayat lands on the relevant date. That is the reason why the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the sale instance was of a comparable land and, therefore, the market value of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs.22,500/- per Hectare. As far as potkharaba land is concerned, it cannot be said that the same can be used for allied purposes such as for storage of implements of agriculture, at a thrashing ground etc. It can also be used for construction of farm hut or farm house. Therefore, the market value of the said land fixed at Rs.2,000/- per Hectare which is less than 10% of the market value of Jirayat Land is certainly reasonable. 4. Determination of the market value under Section 23 of the said Act by its very nature involves some element of guess work. In the present case, there is a sale instance of comparable land situated in a close proximity of the acquired land. The said sale instance has been accepted by the Trial Court and the market value has been rightly fixed on the basis thereof. 5. I find no error in the findings recorded by the Reference Court. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. ash 5 fa-523.97 6. Civil Application No.376 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )