1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 13 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Jalgaon. ...Appellant. Versus Dyaneshwar Trimbak Patil, Age 30 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Manmodi, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Respondent. Shri. N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for the appellant/State. Shri. D.G. Chewale Advocate h/f. Shri. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by State, challenging the judgment and order dated 4th of August 1990 passed by the learned Judge of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 134/1986 granting compensation of Rs.1,36,300/- to the respondent/claimant for acquisition of his land i.e. Gat No. 44/2 admeasuring 5.28 hector plus 22 R. Potkharab land situated at village Manmodi, Taluka Bhusawal, District 2 Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"). 2. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 8.10.1981 for the acquisition of land in question for the purpose of percolation tank. The declaration under section 6 was issued on 5.7.1984 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award granted compensation of Rs.89,422.85 to the respondent/claimant. The possession of land was already taken. The claimant/respondent preferred Land Acquisition Reference No. 134/1989 claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per acre for Bagayat land and well. 3. The claimant/respondent led his own evidence as P.W. 1 Dyaneshwar and relied upon the sale instance at Exh. 23 in respect of the land Gat No. 188 of village Wilhale, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon which showed the sale of land at Rs. 40,000/- per hector. The Reference Court relying upon the said sale instance at Exh. 23 coupled with the evidence of claimant P.W. 1 Dyaneshwar, arrived at a finding that the actual price prevailing in respect of the land in question on the date of publication of notification in the year 1981 was of Rs.40,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the Reference Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,30,200/-for 5.28 hector plus 22 Potkharab land at the rate of Rs.50/- per acre and Rs.5000/- as the price of well. Thus, the total compensation awarded was Rs.1,36,300/-. 3 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri. N.H. Borade appearing for the appellant contended that the sale instance relied upon pertains to the year 1983 whereas the land was acquired in the year 1981 and therefore, the said sale instance was not relevant and could not have been relied upon. Similarly, the learned counsel contended that the sale instance at Exh. 23 pertained to Gat No. 188 of village Welhale, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, is situated at the higher distance from the land in question and the same was, therefore, not relevant. 5. I have gone through the evidence of P.W. 1 Dyaneshwarl and perused the sale instance at Exh. 23. The Reference Court has recorded a finding that Exh. 23 was the only sale instance available for determining the market value and though the same pertained to the year 1983 and the notification under section 4(1) was issued on 8.10.1981, the market value could be determined on its basis. There is no cross examination as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Judge of the Reference Court about the distance between the land in question and Gat No. 188. Similarly, it is not the case that the sale instances pertaining to the year 1981 in respect of the land situated in the neighborhood of the land in question were available. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment reported in 1975 Mh.L.J. 468, Chindha Vithal Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer has taken a view that post notification sales are not irrelevant and cannot be discarded merely because they are effected two 4 or three years after relevant date. In view of this, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Reference Court in determining the compensation of land in question at total Rs.1,36,300/-. 6. In the light of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Reference Court in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 134/1989 delivered on 4th of August 1990. The instant appeal fails and the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/fa13.94