( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 482 OF 1993 Laxman s/o Ganpati Jagtap, R/o Bhatangali, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad Since deceased by L.Rs. I. Ramkrishna s/o Laxmanrao Jagtap R/o Bhatangali, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. II. Pralhad s/o Laxmanrao Jagtap, R/o as above. III. Balaji s/o Laxmanrao Jagtap, R/o as above. IV. Smt. Kasturbai w/o Laxmanrao Jagtap, R/o as above. APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Latur, at present Osmanabad. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. V.G. Mete, advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th November, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) case No. 39/1987 whereby partial ( 2 ) enhancement of compensation amount was granted in respect of the appellants’ land which came to be acquired. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased claimant (Laxman) owned agricultural land Survey No. 23/1 admeasuring 2 hectares 21 Ares (i.e. 5 acres 21 gunthas) situated at village Bhatangli (Dist. Osmanabad). Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25-11-1982. It was published in the Government Gazette on 20-01-1983. The land was acquired for construction of lower Terna Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 4400/- per acre. The deceased claimant (Laxman) was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. He accepted the compensation amount under protest. He sought Reference to the civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector made Reference under section 18 to the civil Court likewise other Land Acquisition References of claimant Subhash Jagtap, Maruti Patil, Uttam Jagtap and Shankar Jagtap. All these Land Acquisition Reference petitions ( 3 ) were clubbed together for common hearing. The learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) rendered common decision in the said Reference cases including Land Acquisition Reference case No. 39/1987 and treating Land Acquisition Reference No. 48/1987 as a leading case. By the common judgement, the Reference Court held that the land could have fetched market value at Rs. 250/- per Are. Thus, the market value was held approximately at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and the compensation was enhanced. 3. The deceased claimant (Laxman) through his legal representatives have challenged the findings of the Reference Court. It is contended that the acquired land could have fetched market value of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The appellants further submitted that compensation in respect of well in the land, chulwan, cattle-shed and the standing trees ought to have been granted to them. They sought compensation of Rs. 1,74,557/- instead of Rs. 55,250/- as awarded by the Reference Court. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. ( 4 ) 5. It is pertinent to notice that in the common trial of the Land Acquisition References, PW Dhondiram Nimbalkar was examined in order to prove sale instance in respect of land purchased by him. Said witness had purchased a land situated at village Sastur at rate of Rs. 14,500/- per acre from one Barkul. It appears further that CW3 Ramkrishna, who is the son of original claimant (Laxman), was examined at Exh-57. He deposed on similar lines likewise other witnesses in respect of the quality, income and market value of the land as was deposed by the other claimants. The testimony of CW Kakasaheb Jagtap was to the effect that there was a well in his land and value of the well was Rs. 20,000/-. He had also narrated that the lands were fertile and irrigated. The sale instance referred to by the claimants was in respect of land situated in another village. It could not be regarded as comparable sale instance because though villages Sastur and Bhatangli are in the proximity of each other, yet, the quality of the land and other factors are not identical. It appears that the lands were submerged in the project. ( 5 ) Obviously, there was no tangible evidence to show that there was chulvan and well in the acquired land. However, it appears that there is entry in the 7/12 record in “other rights column” regarding existence of well and chulvan in the land. The relevant entry (Exh-54) should have been considered. The impugned judgement does not show the method of assessment of the market value of the acquired land. The claimants also had produced copies of sale-deeds (Exh-20 and Exh-21) which related to other sale instances. By virtue of sale-deed dated 01-09-1979, land from village Kawtha was sold for consideration of Rs. 21,000/- to the Sugar Factory. It also appears that the land from village Nagur was sold and it comprised of 96 Ares. In other words, the lands in the proximity of the acquired land were sold at rate of Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 14,500/- per acre. Considering the comparable sale and location of the acquired land and when there was some evidence available regarding existence of a well and chulwan in the acquired land, the Reference Court should have awarded compensation at rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre on assumptive market value. For, even if the other ale ( 6 ) instances of lands in adjoining villages could not be directly barred, yet, there was semblance in those lands due to proximity with the acquired lands. The deceased claimant (Laxman) was entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards acquisition of the well and Rs. 5000/- towards acquisition of chulwan. 6. Considering the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are held entitled to receive compensation at rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre, alongwith compensation of additional amount of Rs. 20,000, being the value of well and chulwan. They will be entitled to receive solatium on increased compensation amount alongwith interest as is permissible under the law. The award rendered by the Reference Court may be modified accordingly. No order as to costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/fa482-93 ( 7 )