1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.8 OF 2009 Vishwanath s/o Nilkanth Jadhav, Age: years, Occu. Agri., r/o Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ...APPELLANT (ORIG.CLAIMANT) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing Area Development, (MHADA), Aurangabad. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Latur, i.e. Land Acquisition Officer, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS (Original Respondents) ... Mr.S.S.Manale, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. V.D.Rakh, A.G.P., for respondent State. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 served. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :11th Jan.,2010 *** 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.P. 2. The non-agricultural, developed plots of the claimants/appellant were subject of acquisition for Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority ( for short `MHADA') in terms of Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976. There is no controversy about the ownership of the respective plots by the claimant/appellants and its nature to be non agricultural plots, forming part of survey No.97 of Latur. 3. The learned Reference Court, in LAR No. 904/2002 ( at Exh.31 of the lower Court record) has considered different sale instances and, based on the value, potential of the property, accepted that the land, subject matter of LAR No. 904/2002, should have fetched Rs.161.63 per sq.mts. for which also sale Reference was considered. The learned Reference Court, deducted two third of the price towards development of the property. 4. The learned Reference Court, in group of matters coming from No.923/2002, applied same scale as was applied in LAR No.904/2002, however, 3 made deduction of two third amount towards development and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.54/- per sq.mts. This finding of the learned Reference Court is assailed by the appellant. 5. At Exh.18 before the Reference Court was a sale deed for a non-agricultural developed plot which was 50 x 50 fts ( 15.24 sq.mts.), fetched sale price of Rs.37,500/-. Though the learned Judge has answered that it was a small size of the plot, however, he was oblivious to the fact that the claimants property - plots are also small plots, which are ranging from 130.06, 223, 223, 275, 167.62 sq.mts., respectively. Since the plots of the claimants were in an already developed lay out, the deduction as was made in LAR No.904/2002 ( Exh.31) should not have been applied by the learned Reference Court as, apparently, the vendor of present claimants has made available open spaces, roads and, thereafter only, the developed plots are sold to the claimants. It has non agricultural potentiality. It is brought on record that it is at a distance of 1 km from Vivekanand Chowk and nearby the acquired property there are Police Quarters, R.T.O. Office, Ring road is at a distance of 3 kms. 6. Taking survey of these facts, I find 4 that the deduction of 2/3rd carried by the learned Judge is not on sound principle. The learned Judge, based on the sale instances at Exh.18 and the award at Exh.31 should have appropriately considered the prices of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.161/- per sq.mt. 7. In the situation, the award needs to be modified; instead of fixing the price of the acquired land at Rs.54/- per sq.mt., it should be at the rate of Rs.161/- per sq.mt. The other benefits, as awarded by the learned Reference Court remain un-altered. No costs. Appeal disposed of in above terms. Needless to add, the date of possession, as stated by the appellants/claimant will be considered by the competent authorities while computing interest. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/8-09fa