1 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.40 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ] .. Appellant V/s. Nagesh Bhau Yedekar ] Age – 53 years, ] Occupation­Agricultrue & Business ] R/o. Tasgaon, District – Sangli. ] .. Respondent ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.41 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ] .. Appellant V/s. Tatyasaheb Jagannath Kulkarni ] Age – 14 years, ] M/g.Jagannath Kesu Kulkarni ] Age – 47 years, ] Occupation­Agricultrue & Business ] R/o. Tasgaon, District – Sangli. ] .. Respondent ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.42 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ] .. Appellant V/s. Narayan Ramchandra Kutte ] Age – 53 years, ] Occupation­Agricultrue & Business ] R/o. Tasgaon, District – Sangli. ] .. Respondent 2 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.535 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra ] .. Appellant (Throught the Collector, Sangli) ] V/s. Babu Shankar Mainkar ] (Since deceased through his LR's) ] 1(A) Smt.Shantabai Babu Mainkar ] (Since deceased through her LR's) ] 1(A)(1) Mahadev Gurling Mainkar ] Age – 40 years. ] 1(A)(2) Maruti Gurling Mainkar ] Age – 40 years. ] 1(A)(3) Mahaling Gurling Mainkar ] Age – 36 years. ] 1(A)(4) Smt.Vatsain Gurling ] Mainkar, Age – 70 years. ] All R/at. Kasar Galli, ] Tasgaon, Taluka Tasgaon ] District Sangli. ] 1(A)(5) Smt.Kamal Mahadeo ] Vibhute, Age­ 50 years, ] R/o. Mhaisal, Taluka Mirag, ] District – Sangli. ] 1(A)(6) Smt. Vatsala Mahaling ] Mhalkar, Age – 30 years, ] R/o. Burli, Taluka Tasgaon, ] District – Sangli. ] .. Respondents ..... Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the appellant – State. Mr. S. G. Deshmukh for respondent. ..... 3 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 7, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :­ Group of these Appeals can be disposed of by a common Judgment as the same arise out of a common Judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge in four different references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). 2. The acquisition is in respect of a small pieces of lands together with the structures thereon situated at Tasgaon, District Sangli. The area of the lands acquired together the structures which are the subject matter of these appeals is 34 square meters, 16.7 square meters, 12.1 square meters and 15.4 square meters respectively. The acquisition was made by issuing a notification dated 18th November, 1982 under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Plaining Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the said Act. Award was made on 30th April, 1984 . The market value offered under the 4 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 Award made under Section 11 of the said Act was at the rate of Rs. 1000/­ per square meters. The Award was not accepted by the respondents­claimants and at their instance, References were made under Section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned Judgment and Awards, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.800/­ per square meters i.e. Rs.80/­ per square feet. In addition to the market value, the trial Court has granted statutory benefits under Sections 23(1­A) 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the appellant­State of Maharashtra has taken the Court through the impugned Judgment and evidence on record. His submission is that the respondents ­claimants have not discharged the burden on them to prove that the market value offered by an Award under Section 11 of the said Act was inadequate. He pointed out that the sale instances relied upon by the respondents which have been accepted by the trial Court are in respect of properties which are not at all comparable with the acquired lands. He submitted that the market value fixed by the trial Court is exorbitant. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments. 5 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. As pointed out earlier, the area of the acquired properties is very small. As far as location of the properties is concerned, on the basis of evidence of claimant in land acquisition Reference No.34 of 1987, in paragraph No.10 of the impugned Judgment, the learned trial Judge has observed that the properties subject matter of acquisition are situated in the same lane known as Kasar Lane. The structures on the acquired property were being used for commercial purposes. As far as the location of acquired property is concerned, the evidence on record shows that Sidheshwar Temple is at the distance of 400 feet from said Kasar Lane. The evidence on record shows that the Court building is at a distance of 1 and ½ furlong from the acquired properties and even the office of Mamlatdar is 100 to 150 feet away from Court building. The bus stand is in front of Court building. The Tahasildar's office is on the east side of the court building. On the basis of the evidence on record, a finding has been recorded that the acquired properties are situated in thickly populated commercial area of Tasgaon town. The learned trial Judge found that there is a big market of grapes in Tasgaon. The leaned trial Judge has made a 6 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 reference to the statement made in the Award under Section 11 of the said Act relating to facilities available to the acquired lands. Though, the Award under Section 11 is in the nature of an offer, the State is bound by what is stated in the Award as regards the advantageous location of the acquired properties. The statement recorded in the Award under Section 11 is that all infrastructural facilities were available at Tasgaon and in fact, the purpose of acquisition was road widening. 5.The claimants have invoked the comparison method. The claimants have relied upon some instances in the form of certified copies of the sale deeds which are at Exhibits­32­A, 38­A and Exhibit­40. As far as the sale deed at Exhibit­32­A is concerned, it is dated 12th October, 1981 which is in respect of the property bearing CTS No.1492. As pointed out earlier, the relevant date for determination of compensation is 18th November, 1982. As of October 1981, the said sale instance discloses the market value of Rs.75/­ per square feet. The vendor and purchaser under the said document have been examined as witnesses. The sale deed at Exhibit­38­A is in respect of property admeasuring 32.3 square meters which is dated 5th 7 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 February, 1982. The purchaser under the said sale deed has been examined as a witness. The property subject matter of the said sale deed is located in the same Kasar Lane. The property subject matter of the said sale deed is at a distance of 200 to 500 feet from the acquired properties. The said sale deed discloses the market value at a rate more than Rs.90/­ per square feet. Apart from the aforesaid sale deed, there is a sale deed at Exhibit 40 in respect of the property admeasuring 20.1 meters which is situated at a distance of 50 to 60 feet from the acquired properties. The said sale deed is of 29th July, 1982. The market value disclosed from the sale deed is of more than Rs.100/­ per sq. meter. The dates of the aforesaid sale deeds are in close proximity of the relevant date. The three sale deeds show that the market value of the properties situated in the vicinity of Kasar Lane on the relevant day was in the range of Rs.80/­ to Rs.100/­ per square meters. 6.The sale deed properties are situated in the close proximity of the acquired properties and, therefore, the market value reflected from the sale deeds can be certainly the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired properties. As repeatedly held by the 8 fa40,41,42,-95,535-01 Apex Court, determination of market value under section 23 of the said Act by its very nature involves an element of guess work. It must be noted here that the trial Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.80/­ per square feet which is approximately Rs.800/­ per square meters. The said finding is supported by the evidence on record. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted separate compensation on account of structures. The compensation granted on the said count has not been disturbed by the learned trial Judge. 7.In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE