1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 2370 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Udhav Shankar Shinde ...RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL No. 2371 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Santosh Shankar Shinde ...RESPONDENT ... Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the appellants Shri A.L. Tikle, Advocate for respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : The land of the present respondent / Original claimants were acquired for the purpose of percolation tank, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition was issued on 2nd December, 1999, and the Award was declared on 20th March, 2002. The claimants being dis- satisfied with the amount awarded filed Reference 2 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Court. In First Appeal No. 2370 of 2010, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation amount of Rs. 2700/- to the claimant. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 8,750/-, whereas in First Appeal No. 2370 of 2010 the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation of Rs. 17820/- and the Reference Court enhanced it to 57,750/-. The Reference Court by way of common Judgment had partly allowed the claim petitions of the claimants in both the First Appeals. The State being aggrieved by the said Award passed by the Reference Court has approached this Court. 2. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, the learned A.G.P. for the State contended that the Reference court has exorbitantly enhanced compensation amount. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 27,000/- per Hector, the same was granted after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and the various sale instances. There was no reason for 3 the Reference Court to enhance the compensation amount. The sale-deed relied upon by the Reference Court i.e. Exh. 27 is of small area of land and the same has been wrongly relied. 3. Per contra, Shri Tikle, learned Counsel for the original claimants states that the Reference Court has properly considered the sale- deed Exh. 27 and has arrived at just conclusion. The amount enhanced is not much. As such, no interference is required in the Award passed by the Reference Court. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsels, I have gone through the Judgment. The sale-deed at Exh. 27 relied upon by the Reference Court is in respect of 35 R land. The said land under sale was also a non irrigated land and the sale-deed is three years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, though the sale-deed was for Rs. 45,000/- for 34 R land, the Reference Court has awarded compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per Acre only. He deducted the price on 4 the ground that the land under the sale-deed was nearer to the road. The reasonings given by the Reference Court are proper and does not call for any interference. The claimant in one of the Appeals was also granted compensation towards stone bundh and well, as it is brought on record the existence of the same, which is not included in the Award. The Valuation report as is made by the acquiring body the same cannot be disputed. 5. In the light of the same, the First appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the First Appeals, the Civil Applications are also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 2370.10/241110