( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 337 OF 1993 Sk. Khaja s/o Sk. Mohmad, Since deceased by L.Rs. Sk. Sadaruddin s/o Sk. Khaja R/o Gadli Galli, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. P.F. Patni, advocate for the appellant. Mrs. V.M. More, A.G.P. for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th November, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No. 61/1983 whereby and whereunder compensation was partly enhanced to the extent of solatium and interest in ( 2 ) respect of the agricultural land which was acquired by the respondent. 2. The appellant is original holder of land Survey No. 78, admeasuring 2 hectares 2 acres, situated at Vaijapur. The land was acquired for public purpose, namely, establishment of Government’s Technical High school at Vaijapur. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 3rd January, 1980. The subsequent notification under section 6 was issued on 27th August, 1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the appellant at rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. The appellant accepted the compensation amount under protest. He was dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation and as such, submitted reference application to the Collector. The Reference was made to the civil Court under section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The case of the appellant was that the acquired land could have fetched market value at Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. He contended that there is proximity of market ( 3 ) place and other potentiality and the value of the acquired land was Rs. 50,000/- per acre. He alleged that there is a well in the acquired land which could be estimated to be worth Rs. 25,000/-. He, therefore, sought enhancement of compensation. By the impugned judgement, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the prayer for enhanced compensation though partly the enhancement of solatium and interest amount came to be allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 5. The only material question involved in this appeal is : “Whether the appellant is entitled to seek enhanced compensation and has proved that market value of the acquired land is more than the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer ? If yes, to what extent ?” 6. At the outset, it is important to notice that ( 4 ) the appellant sought reliance on two (2) sale instances. One of the sale instance is dated 23rd September, 1982. It appears that 32 gunthas land was sold by vendor for consideration of Rs. 30,000/- vide the sale-deed in question. There cannot be doubt about the fact that the said sale-deed was executed after more than two years of the initial notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Obviously, such post- notification sale instance is of no relevance. It is of common knowledge that after the acquisition, at times, properties in the proximity in the acquired land may be shown to have been sold for higher price. The another sale instance referred to by the appellant in respect of sale of 14 gunthas land for Rs. 11,000/- vide sale-deed dated 17-08-1962. True, it was a past sale and gives clue about prevailing market value of the lands situated in the proximity of the land which was sold. Still, however, it is worthwhile to notice that the land only to the extent of 14 gunthas was sold under the said sale-deed. It is of common knowledge that small fragments of lands are usually sold for higher price than normal market value. For, such small fragments are ( 5 ) useful to amalgamate the bit chunks of the land situated in the proximity thereof. Thus, the adjacent land holder who purchases a small fragment is usually ready to give higher price than the market value. The sale instance of the year 1962 is also, therefore, of no much relevance. The comparison of sale instances could not be done because the instances are not within the proximity of the date of first notification issued under section 4 (1). Though the appellant claimed that value of well situated in the land is of Rs. 25,000/-, yet, this averment is not duly proved. There is no corroborative evidence in this behalf. There is solitary version of the appellant which is not found acceptable by the trial Court. The criterion to be applied for determination of the market value is duly considered by the Reference Court. The valuation of the suit land was properly done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer referred to other sale instances which indicated that the properties were sold in the year 1976 at Rs. 2250/- per acre which could have fetched market value at Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per acre in the year 1980. Considering the reasons ascribed ( 6 ) by the learned Additional District Judge, I do not find any substance in the appeal. I am in general agreement with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge. 7. In the result, the first appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/fa337-93