1 F.A.No.468 of 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.468 OF 1994 Noor Mohmmad s/o Umar Bhai (Died) His Legal Representatives : (1) Fatema w/o Hazi Noor Mohammad, |Appeal as against Age 55 years, Occu.Household, |deceased appellant R/o Parbhani |No.1 is abated as per |Registrar’s order dtd. | 2.5.2006 2. Mohd.Ismail s/o Hazi Noor Mohammad, aged 39 years, Occu.Agriculture and business, R/o As above 3. Modh.Iqbal s/o Hazi Noor Mohamad, Aged 37 years, Occu. and r/o as above ..APPELLANTS (Orig.Claimants) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Parbhani 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jayakwadi, Parbhani ..RESPONDENTS (Orig.Respondents) Mrs M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants Appeal as against appellant No.1 is abated as per Registrar’s order dated 2.5.2006 Mrs V.A.Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2011 2 F.A.No.468 of 1994 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in Land Acquisition Reference No.547 of 1991, wherein the Court has partly disallowed the claim for enhancement of the compensation of the appellants. The land i.e. Survey No.22 situates at village Sendra, Taluka and District Parbhani. Respondents issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 27.7.1971 in respect of acquisition of the land of the appellants. The notification was published on 10.8.1972 and award was declared on 31.3.1973. The land was acquired at the rate of Rs.3,200/- per hectare. According to the appellants, market rate at the time of the acquisition was not less than Rs.6,000/- per acre and, therefore, reference was made to the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Parbhani. While deciding the reference, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said order, claimants preferred this appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the land acquired was irrigable (bagayat) land and so, the Court has committed error in not appreciating the fertility of the land. The Court ought to have considered the evidence of sale instances produced by the appellants and has grossly erred in determining the market price of the land at the time of notification. It was further submitted that the impugned land situates hardly at a distance of 3 Kms near the market place, district Parbhani and it was a relevant fact to fix the price for compensation. Learned Assistant 3 F.A.No.468 of 1994 Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that in the judgment, Reference Court has considered all these points. Learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that the land acquired was an irrigable land but it was a dry land. She pointed out that in the evidence of the appellant he has given such admission. She further submitted that the sale instances, which are produced are of post notification and, therefore, they cannot be considered as a criterion to fix the compensation at a higher rate. 2. The issue of determination is : Whether the appellant is entitled to get the more compensation for the land acquired ? Ans. : No. Perused the judgment of the Reference Court. The land is a dry land. So, the cash crop cannot be yielded from the said land. Three sale instances are produced. They are of the following dates : (i) 15.6.1973; (ii) 8.10.1973; and (iii) 15.10.1973 The notification published of the land in the matter was dated 10.8.1972. The learned Reference Court has rightly appreciated that the two sale deeds were in respect of the land situated within the 4 F.A.No.468 of 1994 Municipal limits of Parbhani and this land is out of the Municipal limits of Parbhani. Therefore, considering the distance from the Municipal limits, quality and the potentiality of the land and the sale instances produced, the Reference Court has appreciated the value of the land. 3. Claimants/appellants had preferred a reference for increase of the rate of compensation, which was fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.3,200/- per hectare. The Reference Court while considering the determining factors of the compensation amount, has considered that the land was acquired for the Agricultural University, Parbhani and that is adjacent to the town though it is not within the Municipal area. Considering all these aspects, the learned Reference Court has rightly increased the rate of compensation from Rs.3,200/- per hectare to Rs.4,000/- per hectare, which in my view is just and no error can be pointed out in the judgment to warrant any interference in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (vvr/468.94fa)