1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.653 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Shivaji Damodhar Sadaphal ..Respondent Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P. For the Appellant. None for the Respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.656 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Ramnath Chabu Shinde & Ors. ..Respondents Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P. For the Appellant. None for the Respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.657 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Sudam Jayram Ghotekar ..Respondent 2 Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P. For the Appellant. Mr.P.N. Joshi for the Respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.659 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Nivrutti Ghamaji Sable & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.N.Gawade, A.G.P. for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.660 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. 1. Kacharu Narhar Gite & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.N.Gawade, A.G.P. for the Appellant. Mr. P.N. Joshi for Respondent nos. 1 to 4. 3 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.661 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Lahanubai Damodar Sadaphal ..Respondent Mr.S.N.Gawade, A.G.P. for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.662 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Somnath Pandharinath Sable ..Respondent Smt. A.A. Mane, A.G.P. For the Appellant. None for the Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.663 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Govind Rambhau Gorade ..Respondent 4 Smt. A.A. Mane, A.G.P. For the Appellant. None for the Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.665 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Dyaneshwar Pandurang Sabale ..Respondent Smt. S.P. Manchekar, A.G.P. For the Appellant. None for the Respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.666 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Hari Rama Barde & Ors. ..Respondent Smt. S.P. Manchekar, A.G.P. For the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : 29TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. :- All these Appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra, arise 5 from a common award dated 30.9.1996 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik, thereby deciding Land Acquisition Reference Nos.402 to 411 of 1989, 412 of 1989, 416 of 1989, 418 of 1989, 990 of 1990 to 992 to 1990. In all, 16 Appeals came to be filed before this Court, challenging the market rate fixed by the reference court in two different categories i.e. Group II and Group III. 2. These Appeals corresponding to the Land Acquisition Reference numbers and the names of the Claimants are as under :- Srl. No. F.A.No. L.A.R. No. Party 1. 653/2000 401/1989 State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji D. Sadaphal 2. 656/2000 405/1989 State of Maharashtra v. Ramnath Chabu Shinde & Ors. 3. 657/2000 406/1989 State v. Sudam J. Ghotekar 4. 659/2000 408/1989 State v. Nivrutti G. Sable 5. 660/2000 409/1989 State v. Kacharu Narhar Gite 6. 661/2000 410/1989 State v. Lahanu Damodar Sadaphal 7. 662/2000 411/1989 State v. Somnath P. Sable 8. 663/2000 414/1989 State v. Govind Rambhau Gorade 6 9. 665/2000 418/1989 State v. Dyaneshwar P. Sable 10. 666/2000 990/1990 State v. Hari Rama Barde 3. The Collector, Nashik, issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) and published the same in the State Gazette on 13.10.1980 for acquiring land at village Kheedlezunge, Taluka Niphad, District Nashik and the land was being acquired for the construction of Nandur Mandurmadhmeshvar Express Canal. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (National Highway Project) Nashik, passed his award on 30.9.1986 and fixed the market rate in 3 – 4 categories varying from Rs.9,500/- to Rs.19,250/-per head. The Claimant accepted the compensation under protest and preferred an application for enhancement under section 18 of the Act on the ground that the compensation so granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Some of them contended that bagayat land was treated as jirayat land and the others claimed that the compensation ought to be at Rs.50,000/- per hectare. In short, the claim made was that all the Claimant’s land was bagayat and the market rate was required to be fixed at Rs.50,000/- per hectare (Rs.20/- per acre). 7 5. The Claimants had examined two witnesses in support of the sale instances. Gangadhar Gite (C.W.2) stated that he purchased land admeasuring 1 hectare and one are for Rs.25,000/- on 25.7.1979 whereas the sale instance in respect of the land purchased by Ramnath Raghunath Gite on 13.10.1969 showed the market rate at Rs. 16,000/- per acre. 6. The reference court relied upon the sale instance of 25.7.1979 as being the most relevant and more so, because of the proximity in time with reference to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. 30.10.1980. However, the Court proceeded to categorize the land in Group III and Group II. The first Group III was called as bagayat land whereas Group II was called as Jirayat land. This was based on the Land Acquisition Officer’s award which had stated that Group III was of superior quality and was bagayat whereas, Group II land was jirayat. 7. In the case of Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 186, the Supreme Court held that when the land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically required to be done to award the compensation is to arrive at the market value of the land on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act. 8. It is well settled that one of the well recognized method of 8 determining the market rate of the land with reference to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act is on the basis of the sale instance and, more particularly, the sale instance of the neighboring land, comparable in terms of quality, crop pattern and proximate in location. 9. A Division Bench of this Court decided First Appeal No.102 of 1999 and other connected Appeals by its judgment dated 23.10.2008. The State Government had acquired land for the very same project i.e. Nandur Mandurmadhmeshvar Express Canal Project but the date of notification under section 4 of the Act was 20.8.1981 i.e. after about 10 months from the notification in the instant case. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed his award on 23.9.1986 i.e. on the same day as in the instant case i.e. 23.9.1986. However, the land was from village Wakad and the reference court had fixed the rate at Rs. 48,000/- per hectare for bagayat land and Rs.32,000/- per hectare for the jirayat land. 10. In these Appeals, we are called upon to decide the Claimants who have not filed any cross-objection or an Appeal for enhancement of compensation. As noted earlier, the reference Court placed reliance on the sale instance dated 25.7.1979 which covered the sale transaction of 1 hectare 1 Are land for Rs.25,000/-. The notification under section 4 of 9 the Act was issued almost after 13 months and, therefore, fixing the market rate at Rs.25,000/- per hectare, in our opinion, cannot be termed as wrong, unjustified or in any way exorbitant. Fixing the market rate at Rs.21,000/- per hectare for the Jirayat land is on the pattern which was noted in the Land Acquisition Officer’s award itself. 11. The land could be ordinarily divided in four groups i.e. perennially irrigated, seasonal irrigated, dry and pot kharabs. Thus, Court has consistently held that if the perennially irrigated land is given the market value of X amount, the dry land must be paid X/2 or half of the value given to the perennially irrigated land. However, the term jirayat land need be treated as dry land in every case and it is quite possible that such a land has the facility of two crops. Though such a distinction has not been made by the reference, we do believe that the Court has not committed an error in fixing the market rate of the jirayat land at Rs.21,000/- per hectare and it is a possible view by a reasonable guess work. 12. We therefore do not find any reason to cause interference with the impugned award fixing the market rate of Rs.25,000/- per hectare for the bagayat land and Rs.21,000/- per hectare for the jirayat land. The challenge in these Appeals is only to the market rate fixed and hence, these Appeals must fail. 10 13. The Appeals are hereby dismissed and the award impugned is confirmed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)