1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.615 OF 1993 1 The State of Maharashtra; 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Appellants Versus Madhav Zipru Sonar, age: 72 years, Occ: Agriculture; R/o Chahardi, Tal. Chopda, District Jalgaon. Respondent Mr.B.V.Wagh, A.G.P. for appellants. None for the Respondent though served. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 05 th January, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The State has presented instant First Appeal raising exception to the judgment and award passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, on 29.04.1988 in L.A.R. No.395 of 1984. 2 Land belonging to Respondent-claimant to the extent of 16 ares came to be acquired for Right Bank Canal of Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur. Section 4 Notification, in respect of acquisition of property, was issued by the Government on 17.07.1980 and after following procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed on 05.06.1984 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined value of the property at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per hectare. The claimant, 2 being aggrieved by the award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, presented an application requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make reference to Civil Court for the purposes of determination of proper market value of the acquired property. The claimant claims compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The claim raised by claimant was opposed by the State by filing written statement. According to the State, valuation arrived at by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is proper and does not call for any interference. 3 The Reference Court, after recording evidence led by the claimant, was pleased to allow the Reference thereby fixing the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. 4 In order to substantiate the claim, claimant has examined two witnesses and placed reliance on the sale instances at Exhibits-19 and 22. One Dattatraya is examined as witness on behalf of the claimant who has proved sale instance at Exhibit-19. The witness has purchased land to the extent of 1 hectare and 8 ares for consideration of Rs.51,000/- on 29.08.1975. The land purchased by witness Dattatraya is from village Mangrul, which is adjacent to the village where agricultural property of the claimant is situate. Another witness examined by claimant is one Khanderao Deshmukh, who has proved sale instance at Exhibit-22. Witness Khanderao claims to have purchased 90 ares of land for consideration of Rs.45,000/-. The land purchased by witness Khanderao is situate within Municipal limits of Chopda. 5 On consideration of the evidence in respect of comparable sale instances placed on record by the claimant, the Reference Court found that proper market price of the acquired land to be Rs.50,000/- per hectare. 3 The sale instance at Exhibit-19 proved by the claimant is of the year 1975, whereas notification under Section 4 in the instant matter is issued in the year 1980. The Reference Court is, thus, justified in placing reliance on the sale instance at Exhibit-19 which has been proved by the claimant, which prescribed market value of the property purchased under sale instance to be Rs.50,000/- per hectare. Apart from this aspect, situation of the land under acquisition also requires to be taken into account. The claimant has stated that acquired property is just adjacent to Burhanpur-Ankleshwar State Highway. It is also stated that the property is within close proximity of Chopda urban area. There are facilities available in close proximity, such as Junior College, Bank, etc. It, thus, appears that the acquired property has sufficient potential value. 6 Considering all these relevant aspects, I am of the opinion that the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the claimant while allowing the Reference Application. The value of the acquired property fixed at Rs.50,000/- per hectare by the Reference Court cannot be said to be exorbitant or fanciful. There are no compelling reasons to cause interference. Appeal is devoid of substance. 7 In the result, Appeal stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/fa61593