{1} fast414909.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.4149 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Suryakant s/o Rajaram Chinchole, and others Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.4176 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Pandurang s/o Sheshrao Nandgave and another Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.4166 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Bhimrao Maroti Nandgave (deceased) through Lrs. and others Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.4182 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant {2} fast414909.odt Versus 1 Devidas s/o Sambhaji Nandgave and others Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.4179 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Sow.Manjulabai w/o Gundiram Wagalgave and another Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.4170 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Ganpati s/o Mohanrao Malishe (deceased) through L.Rs. and another Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.4173 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Giridhar Sambhaji Nandgave and another Respondents {3} fast414909.odt Mr.S.D.Dhongade, advocate for appellant. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Mr.H.V.Patil, advocate for rest of the respondents. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 27th July, 2011 PER COURT: 1 These are appeals presented by the acquiring body raising exception to the judgment and award dated 25.01.2007, passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.669 of 2003 and other companion Reference Applications. 2 Agricultural lands belonging to the claimants, comprising of small pieces, came to be acquired for the purpose of Minor Irrigation Tank at village Rachannawadi, Taluka Chakur, District Latur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.08.1996 and after following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed on 02.07.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired land. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered separate applications seeking reference of the matters to the Civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired lands. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. 3 In order to substantiate their claims, claimants have placed reliance on the oral as well as documentary evidence. The documentary {4} fast414909.odt evidence consist of comparable sale instances in respect of sale transactions in the near vicinity of the acquired lands. Claimants placed reliance on the sale instance dated 21.11.1994 produced at Exhibit-11. Agricultural land admeasuring 48 ares out of G.No.78, situate at village Kalkoti, Tq. Chakur, has been purchased by one Balaji Hemnar for consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. It is stated by the witness (P.W.1) examined by the claimants that village Kalkoti is at a distance of one Km. from village Rachannawadi. The Reference Court has considered the sale instance being comparable one and by giving appropriate allowance for minus factors, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments, determined market value of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.1000/- per guntha. The sale instance placed on record gives the market rate at Rs.3000/- per guntha, however, considering other relevant factors, such as distance between acquired land and land covered by sale instance so also quality and fertility of soil, the Reference Court scaled down the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per guntha. 4 I have perused the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. Shri Dhongade, learned Counsel for appellant, has made reference to the relevant evidence produced before the Reference Court, while arguing the matter. 5 Considering all the relevant circumstances, I am of the view that the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in support of the award are proper and the amount of compensation, that has been directed to be paid, is quite moderate. Considering the fact that very small pieces of land have been acquired for the public purpose thereby entitling the {5} fast414909.odt claimants to receive paltry sum, I do not find any justification for causing interference in the appeals. Appeals are devoid of substance. 6 Appeals are dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeals, pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/ca313009