(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO. ................. OF 2009 (Stamp No. 15824/2009) The Executive Engineer, Vishnupuri Project Division No.1, Presently shifted under .. Appellant Lendi Project, (Original Division Degloor, respondent District : Nanded. no.3. ) versus 1. Maroti s/o. Ramrao Konale, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Vithal s/o. Ramrao Konale, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Ramesh s/o. Gangadhar Konale, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Ganesh s/o. Gangadhar Konale, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 5. Madhav s/o. Ramrao Konale, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (2) 6. Manohar s/o. Ramrao Konale, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Agriculture. All R/o. Rawangaon, Taluka : Mukhed, District : Nanded. .. Respondents (Nos.1 to 6 - 7. The State of Maharashtra, Original claimants, through the Collector, Nos.2 and 3 - Nanded. Original respondent nos.1 and 2). 8. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works, Nanded. .......................... Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate, for the appellant. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Appeal taken up for admission. Office to register it as First Appeal. 2. By way of present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandhar, dated 12th January 2007, in Land Acquisition Reference No. (3) 153/2004 (New), thereby partly allowing the reference and enhancing the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. P.G. Rodge, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the reference Court has grossly erred in enhancing the compensation. He further submits that the compensation has been enhanced without there being any material on record. He further submits that the reference Court has also erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 9 % per annum for the first year from the date of notification and for the subsequent years at the rate of 15 % per annum under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. We have perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge of the reference Court. The reference Court has found that on the basis of the comparable sale instances, it could be found that the market value of the land was approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare at the relevant period. It could also be seen from the record, that there was also sale instance which had shown that the land admeasuring 81 R was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Inspite of this evidence on record, the reference Court has found that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 82,000/- per hectare, instead of Rs. 65,500/- per hectare, was reasonable. 5. We find that the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge of the reference Court is on the basis of the material produced before it and upon true and correct appreciation of the same. It can be seen that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,500/- per hectare. The same is enhanced by the (4) reference Court at the rate of Rs. 82,000/- per hectare, when the comparable sale instances were produced on record to establish that the land in those sale instances were sold at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare and land admeasuring 81 R. was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 6. In so far as the second contention, regarding enhancement of rate of interest is concerned, it is devoid of any substance, inasmuch as, nothing has been placed on record to show that the interest has been awarded wrongly, which was already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 7. In that view of the matter, no infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the reference Court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 8. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/fast15824