1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO.513 OF 2009. State of Maharashtra and others .vs. Hafijoddin Hajimoddin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Ordersdirections and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 23rd JULY, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.N.S.Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for the appellants. 2. This first appeal is preferred against the award passed by the reference court whereby it awarded compensation of Rs.85,050/- while the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.44,750/- for acquisition of 0.81 Ares of land. It is this award passed by the reference court which is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits 2 that the award passed by the reference court errs on a higher side. He submits that the reasons as given by the said reference court in paragraph no.10 of the judgment are not very convincing. 4. After having gone through the contents of para no.10, it is apparent that the learned judge of the reference court had taken into consideration the only sale instance that was available. According to that sale instance, 86 Ares of land was purchased for sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sale instance relates to the land abutting the road therefore it cannot be compared with the lands which is acquired. It appears from the observations of the learned judge that that was the only sale instance available in that area. Even the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the same sale instance. It may be mentioned here that the learned judge of the reference court does not award compensation at the rate at which the land Survey No.19/1 was sold for Rs.1,00,000/- but he deducts 25% from the market price, since the present land, which is under acquisition, is not abutting the road as land in the sale instance was abutting the road. Since the learned judge of the trial court has deducted 25% , it must be assumed that he has taken into consideration the fact that the land under 3 acquisition does not abut the road and would not fetch same price as in the sale instance. Deduction of such 25% was, therefore, proper on the part of the learned judge and I do not find any perversity in the same. There is no substance in the first appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute