1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 1993 Kalidas s/o Laxumanrao Wadane age 30 years, occ. agril & advocate r/o Malumbra, Tq. Tuljapur at present at 1/168 Tambri, Osmanabad. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Osmanabad Respondent Shri M.P. Tripath, Advocate holding for Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. S.S. Autade, AGP for the State. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20th August, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 This is an appeal by original claimant in Land Acquisition Reference no. 465/1991 raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad on 22-9-1992. 2 2 Land belonging to the claimant admeasuring 9 acres and 20 gunthas situate at village Malumbra Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad came to be acquired for construction of percolation tank by the State Government. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24-7-1986. After following procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed on 21-10-1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer who passed the award fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,200/- per acre. Claimant was not satisfied by the price awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such he preferred reference application. In the reference application, claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. it is the contention of the claimant that the land under acquisition is irrigated land and the prevailing market price of the land in the vicinity is not less than Rs.20,000/- per acre. Claim raised by the claimant was opposed by the State Government by filing written say. According to the State Government, market price awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is adequate and the rate awarded depicts the prevailing market price on the date of section 4 notification in respect of acquired land. 3 3 Claimant, in order to substantiate his contention, examined himself and placed on record the copies of sale instances for showing the price prevailing on the date of section 4 notification. After considering the evidence placed on record, reference court came to the conclusion that the proper market value of the acquired land on the date of section 4 notification is Rs.10,000/- per acre and and as such directed enhancement of the compensation. Claimant was also held entitled to receive benefits in accordance with the provisions of amended Land Acquisition Act. 4 I have perused the judgment delivered by the reference court and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. Claimant has placed reliance on the sale instances at exh. 20, 21 and 22 placed on record. Exh. 20 is the sale instance executed by one Vijay Salve. Land covered by the sale instance is stated to be irrigated land whereas exh. 21 is the sale instance in respect of land situate at village Masala Khurd. The transaction is in respect of 20 gunthas of land which has been alienated for consideration of Rs.10,000/- on 15-5-1986. Exh. 22 is the another sale instance showing that the land situate at village Masala Khurd was sold for Rs.17,000/- in the year 1979. Area covered by 4 the sale instance is 2 acres and 25 gunthas. Reference court thought it fit to place reliance on sale instance at exh. 21 in respect of land situate at village Masala Khurd. It is stated by witness for the claimant that village Masala Khurd is situate at about 2 kms from the acquired land. It was contended that the land covered by the sale instance at exh. 21 is of the same quality as that of the acquired land. It is also contended by the claimant that the land under acquisition is an irrigated land and the facility of irrigation was available as the agriculturist was taking well water from the adjoining well belonging to adjoining land holder. Considering all these relevant aspects, reference court thought it fit to place reliance on the evidence in the form of sale-deed placed on record at exh. 21. Reference court directed enhancement in the amount of compensation and fixed market price at Rs.10,000/- per acre. In my opinion, analogy adopted by the reference court for arriving at market rate is proper. There is no scope for reaching conclusion to the effect that the market price of the land on the date of section 4 notification was higher than what has been awarded by the reference court. Apart from the sale instances referred, there is no other evidence placed on record by the claimant. Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal does not call for any interference. There is no merit in the appeal. 5 Appeal therefore stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/fa234.93.odt