1 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 347 OF 1994 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.13904 OF 1994 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer, & Assistant Collector, Degloor .. Appellants (Ori. Respondents) Versus Digamber S/o Vithal Padgulwar, Aged 32 years,Occup.: Agril.& Business R/o Lakha, Tq.Degloor .. Respondent (Ori. Claimants) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 346 OF 1994 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO. 13903 OF 1994 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer, & Assistant Collector, Degloor .. Appellants (Ori. Respondents) 2 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) Versus Ravindra S/o Madhavrao Mangrule, Aged 27 years,Occup.: Agriculture R/o Lakha, Tq. Degloor .. Respondent (Ori. Claimants) .... Shri. S.D.Kaldate,AGP for the Appellants. None for the respondents. ..... CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 21st DECEMBER, 2010. JUDGMENT : . Heard learned A.G.P. for the appellant. None for the respondents. 2. Both these appeals can be disposed by common judgment because same are filed against common Judgment and Award dated 24th April, 1992, passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division) Biloli. A FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER: 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued 3 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 28th September, 1987 for acquiring respondents-Original claimants land from village Lakha, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded for resettlement of flood affected people of the same village. The said notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette No.4038 dated 31st December, 1987. Thereafter, Notification under section of the Land Acquisition Act dated 19th August, 1988 issued. After following due process of law, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued Notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30th December, 1988 to the respondents-original claimants calling upon claim/objections pursuant to the notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents-Original claimants filed their claim and requested the Special Land Acquisition Office to grant compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of 3/- Per Square Feet. 4 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) 4. After following due process of law, Special Land Acquisition Officer declared Award dated 7th February, 1990 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) Per Hector (Approximately Rs.4.31 Ps Per Sq. Feet). The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under section 12(2) of the said Act dated 12th February, 1990. The same was served on the respondents-Original claimants on 19th February, 1990. Thereafter, respondents-Original claimants filed Reference Under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21st March, 1990 claiming compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs.3/- Per Square Feet. In the said reference State of Maharashtra filed its written statement dated 19th November, 1991. The Reference Court passed Judgment and Award dated 29th April, 1992 and awarded compensation Rs.1.60 Ps. Per Square Feet. 5. In First Appeal No. 347 of 1994 arising out 5 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) of Land Acquisition Reference No. 67 of 1991, land 1H.60Are from Gut NO. 125 is acquired. In First Appeal No. 346 of 1994 arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 68 of 1991, land 1H.48 Ares from land gut NO.110 is acquired. 6. Mr. Kaldate, learned AGP appearing on behalf of appellants submits that Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that respondents- Original claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1.60 Ps per Sq. Feet. He further submits that Reference Court erred in awarding compensation on the basis of N.A. potentiality. He submits that till 1984-85 respondents-original claimants were using the acquired land for agricultural purpose. 7. He submits that Reference Court has failed to consider that N.A. permission granted in respect of acquired lands, but lands were not converted into N.A. use within stipulated period, 6 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) therefore, permission has lapsed. He submits that the Reference Court ought to have held that compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) was prevailing market rate on the date of issuing notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. I have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the present case. Points for determination in this matter is: (i) Whether the Reference Court erred in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.3.60 Paise Per Sq. Feet.? 9. In the present case, respondents-original claimants relied on the following sale instances: Gut No. Exhibit Number Sale Deed Date Area A.= G. H.= R. Amount Rs.Ps. Rate Rs.Ps.P .Sq.Ft 125 32 29.07.1985 01=5 5000=00 2.06 124 35 19.10.1983 0=01 2995=00 2.75 7 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) 125 33 19.10.1983 00=01 - 2.75 110 34 19.10.1983 00=01 2995=00 2.75 123 31 19.10.1983 00=01 2995=00 2.75 10. These sale deeds produced by the respondents- original claimants. The respondents also examined P.W.2 Ashok Vithalrao (Exh.36) to prove the sale deed (Exh.32), dated 29th July, 1985. Some of the sale deeds are from Gut No. 125 and 110 also i.e., the same Gut Number, out of which the Appellant acquired the original claimants land. Apex Court in the matter of Shakuntalabai(Smt) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (1996)2 Supreme Court Cases 152 held that sale transaction of the same land are basis for determining the market value. The Reference Court at the time of calculating the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1.60 Ps. Per Sq. Feet deducted 50% towards development charges and on account of smaller area. 11. The respondents-original claimants produced 8 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) on record N.A. order dated 7th March, 1983(Exh.29) and lay out map at (Exh. 29/A). They also placed on record at Exh.30 receipt of payment of N.A. Assessment. The claimants entered into witness box and placed on record these documents i.e. 29, 29/A and Exh.30. It is admitted fact that though appellants – State of Maharashtra in their written statement stated that respondents-original claimants were taking agricultural crops till 1984-1985. They did not adduced either oral or documentary evidence to prove the averments in their written statement. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award under the Caption “Situation and Description” stated that “Village Lakha is situated in the interior area near the village Wannali. There are education facilities available upto IVth standard there is electric supply in the village. Amenities are being provided in the newly acquired gaothan.” The land Acquisition Officer in his Award admitted that all facilities for use of the land for N.A. 9 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) purpose were available near acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This itself shows that the lands were having N.A. Potentiality. 12. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court. 13. As no one appeared on behalf of respondents- original claimants in Cross objection Stamp No. 13904 of 1994 in First Appeal No.347 of 1994 and Cross Objection Stamp No.13903 of 1994 in First Appeal No. 346 of 1994 same are liable to be dismissed in default. 14. The Appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and Award dated 24th April, 1992 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Biloli are dismissed. 10 F.A.347.94 +1(X-Obj.) 15. Cross Objection Stamp No.13904 of 1994 in First Appeal No. 347 of 1994 and Cross Objection Stamp No.13903 of 1994 in First Appeal No. 346 of 1994 are dismissed in default. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] MTK