1 F.A.No.206.95 +1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 206 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon Appellant V E R S U S Shri Vijay Jagannath Patil,Age 30 years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Nibol,Tal Raver. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4918 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 206 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon Applicant V E R S U S Shri Vijay Jagannath Patil,Age 30 years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Nibol,Tal Raver. Respondent Mrs.V.A.More,A.G.P.for the applicant Mr S.R.Barlinge,Advocate for the respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 205 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon Appellant 2 F.A.No.206.95 +1 V E R S U S Shri Jagannath Rajaram Patil Deceased Through L.Rs. 1] Sau Kaushalya W/o Jagannath Patil, Age 52 years 2] Shri Vijay Jagannath Patil,Age 28 years Occupation Agriculturist Both Nibol,Ta.Raver, District Jalgaon Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4924 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 205 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon Applicant V E R S U S Shri Jagannath Rajaram Patil Deceased Through L.Rs. 1] Sau Kaushalya W/o Jagannath Patil, Age 52 years 2] Shri Vijay Jagannath Patil,Age 28 years Occupation Agriculturist Both Nibol,Ta.Raver, District Jalgaon Respondents Mrs.V.A.More,A.G.P.for the appellant None present for the respondents ... 3 F.A.No.206.95 +1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment. 2] These Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Jalgaon, on 3rd September, 2010 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.72 of 1991 and 73 of 1991 respectively. 3] The two house properties belonging to the respondents were acquired by the State Government through Land Acquisition proceeding initiated by the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ( hereinafter referred to as L.A.Act) published in 1983. Ultimately, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award granting certain amount as compensation for the properties acquired. The appellants filed references u/s 18 of the L.A.Act. The respondent- State opposed the References. As said above, the learned Judge of Reference Court disposed of the said Land Acquisition References through impugned common judgment. 4] The House No. 99/1 comprises of three small structure, for which the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 51,667.60 as compensation. 4 F.A.No.206.95 +1 The House No. 87, on the other hand, was structure made of cement and brick masonry etc., and the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.3,52,065.65 as compensation. 5] The appellant-State opposed the reference saying the compensation awarded was proper etc. The respondent led evidence mainly in the form of sale instance of adjoining village and in the form of valuation report. On the other hand, the appellant-State examined the officer who was working as Special Land Acquisition officer, but who had not passed the award in question. The Reference Court held that, for the purpose of valuation of the land in question, he would rely on the sale instance dated 05.05.1982 in respect of Gram Panchayat House No. 1029 of village Ainpur. The sale instance shows that, a partly constructed plot, admeasuring 24.54½ sq. meter was sold for consideration of Rs.8000/-. The learned Judge held that the costs of the land in the sale instance was Rs.250/- per Sq. meter. In juxtaposition of this, the learned Judge of the Reference Court took into account the evidence of the valuer and held that land under the reference structure would have fetch Rs.250/- per Sq. Meter as its market value on the date of notification. 6] Upon hearing submissions of both Advocates following points arise for my determination. 5 F.A.No.206.95 +1 1] Whether the learned Judge of the reference Court erred in relying on the sole sale instance of adjoining village for determining the market value of the land in question ? 2] Whether the valuation report is reliable? 3] Whether the appellant could show that they had allotted open plots to the respondents/claimants in lieu of the property under Reference and so the compensation for the land under structure was erroneously awarded? 7] The learned counsel appearing for the appellant asserted that, the only sale instance, on which the learned Judge of the Reference Court placed reliance belonged to other village by name Ainpur. She pointed that this village is situated at a distance of 3 to 4 K.M. away from the village Nibol, where the reference properties were situated. She also pointed out that the admission in the deposition of the claimants that the village Ainpur was not only a bigger village, but is situated closer to river Tapi, therefore, had better agriculture lands. She said, considering the difference between the villages, there ought to have difference in valuation of the plots of land used for the houses in these two villages. Though, this argument is quite attractive, there is hardly any material on record to support this contention. Besides, the learned Judge of the Reference Court has not exactly equated the land in the sale instance with the lands under 6 F.A.No.206.95 +1 structure belonging to respondents/claimants. 8] As pointed above, the learned Judge of the Reference Court appreciated this part of evidence alongwith the valuation report. So, there appears no error on the part of the learned Judge of the Reference Court on relying the sale instance of village Ainpur. 9] The valuer was examined, as witness of the claimants. He said that, he had visited to the Reference properties and had inspected the same. He made elaborate description of the kind of building material used for construction of the various structures in respect of the valuation of the land under structure. He, too, placed reliance on the sale instance dated 5th may,1982. Having regard to cross examination of this witness, I am inclined to hold that there is nothing on record to discard his opinion. 10] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant brought to my notice certain admissions given by the claimant during his cross examination. He had admitted that, the Government had given him and other claimants plots of land in lieu of the reference land, which they had lost due to acquisition at nominal rate/costs,. However, this part of the evidence can not be read because in the written statement the appellant did not plead that as and by way of compensation the 7 F.A.No.206.95 +1 Government has also allotted plots of land to the claimants. Even the Award does not mentioned that the certain plots were given to the claimants. This part of evidence, thus, is not admissible and can not be considered as part of defence raised by the appellant. Both the appeals, therefore, should fail. Both the First Appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application No. 4918 of 1996 in First Appeal No.206 of 2006 and the Civil Application No. 4924 of 1996 in First Appeal No.205 of 2006 stand dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ ok