1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.1055 OF 2010. 1. The State of Maharashtra. through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. ... Appellants. Versus Manohar Shankar Survase (died) since deceased through his L.Rs. 1. Narayan S/o Manohar Survase, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculture, 2. Vishnu S/o Manohar Survase, Age 22 years, Occ.Agriculture, 3. Vasant S/o Manohar Survase, Age 20 years, Occ.Agriculture, 4. Smt.Satyabhamabai Wd/o Manohar Survase, Age 46 years, Occ.H.H. & Agriculture, All R/o Kanegaon, Tal.Udgir, Dist.Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the appellants. Mr.V.D.Gunale, addovcate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.11.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The land of the present Respondents/original claimants was acquired. The claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded preferred a Reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court relying on the sale deed Exh.12 which was executed on 29.3.1984, enhanced the compensation and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 59,100/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand one hundred) per hectare i.e. Rs.591/- (Rupees five hundred ninety one) per Are. The S.L.A.O. had awarded compensation at Rs.13,530/- (Rupees thirteen thousand five hundred thirty) and as per the Reference Court, the same comes to Rs.23,000/- (Rupees twenty three thousand) per acre. The State has challenged the said award in the present appeal. 2. Mrs.Kshirsagar, learned Asstt.Govt. 3 Pleader submits that S.L.A.O. has considered all the sale instances, potentiality of the land and had arrived at the proper conclusion. The Reference Court could not have enhanced the amount of compensation solely on the basis of one sale deed. There is nothing on record to show that the land under the sale deed Exh.12 was similarly situated with the acquired land. 3. Per contra, Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the judgment of the Reference Court. According to the learned counsel, the Reference Court has given a reasonable amount of compensation. The sale deed on which the reliance was placed was in respect of the land situated in the same village and the said sale deed was 3 1/2 years prior to the notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In fact, the Reference Court should have awarded more amount of compensation. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgment delivered by the Reference 4 Court and also the sale deed. 5. The Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale deed Exh.12. It has considered the situation of the property. So also the Reference Court had considered the judgment delivered in LAR No.1852/2001 which was with respect to the property situated at village Shend i.e. the same village, wherein the present property is also situated. In the said matter, the Court had fixed the market value at Rs. 62,200/- (Rupees sixty two thousand two hundred) per hectare. The Reference Court has observed that the said Award passed in LAR No.1852/2001 had become final and was not challenged by the Government. The same can be taken into consideration. The Reference Court taking into consideration the sale deed Exh.12 and the award passed in LAR No.1852/2001, which was in respect of land situated in the same village has awarded compensation at Rs.59,100/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand one hundred) per hectare. No error has been committed by the Court while awarding the said compensation. 5 6. In light of the above, the First Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa1055.10