1 fa 1614.15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Thagubai Ishwar Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1615 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Kalpana Bhaurao Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1616 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Sakharam Bhojan Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1617 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Sundarbai Devidas Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1618 OF 2015 2 fa 1614.15 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Dharma Kashiram Mali (Dead) Guntabai Dharma Mali and others .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1619 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Bhagwan Dhanraj Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1620 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Jitendra Ramdas Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1621 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Ramdas Deochand Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1622 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Chandrakant Tulshiram Mali and another .. Respondents 3 fa 1614.15 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1623 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Ravindra Harichandra Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1624 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Dilip Dagadu Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Rajendra Dagadu Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1626 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Rukhmabai Dagadu Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1627 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus 4 fa 1614.15 Narayan Parshuram Mali and another .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2015 Executive Engineer, M.I.P. Dhule sinchan Bhavan Dhule .. Appellant Versus Pramilabai Rajendra Mali and another .. Respondents Ms Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, Advocate for the Appellant in all matters. Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/claimant in all matters. Shri S. P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2/State in all matters. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 16TH OCTOBER, 2015. PER COURT : . Lands of the present respondent No. 1/claimants are acquired for Mandal Minor Irrigation Tank. For the said project, lands from Moghan and Dhodre are acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 65,475/- to Rs. 75,100/- per hectare. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, filed References under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short " L. A. Act"). The said References are partly allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the acquiring body has filed the present appeals. 5 fa 1614.15 2. Mrs. Vaishali Patil, the learned counsel for the acquiring body strenuously contends that each and every case has to be individually considered on its own evidence, on the basis of evidence led. According to the learned counsel, the claimants have not led any evidence to show the topography of the acquired lands and the lands under sale instances relied by the claimants. The learned counsel submits that three sale instances are relied by the claimants i. e. Exhibits 14, 15 and 17 of village Moghan and Tikhi. The said sale deeds cannot be considered as exemplar sale deeds. Learned counsel submits that even the Reference Court has not come to the conclusion about the situation of the properties acquired and the lands under the sale deeds. No topography was available before the Reference Court. Still the Reference Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare without any basis. The Reference court has awarded exorbitant compensation amount. According to learned counsel, in absence of comparability between the lands under acquisition and the lands covered under the sale instances, the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation amount. 3. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned single judge of this court in the case of Deputy collector Vs. Diogo, reported in 2006 (2) Bom. C.R.769. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hookiyar Singh Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 766 to submit that the 6 fa 1614.15 burden of proving the market value prevailing as on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is upon the claimants. According to the learned counsel, the claimants have miserably failed to prove the market value as on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the L. A. Act as Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court, though has not accepted the sale instances, has granted enhanced compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare only on the basis of guess work which is not permissible. The learned counsel also submits that, the Reference Court has not categorized the lands and has only determined the market value of the lands. Out of the said three sale deeds only Exhibit 14 of village Moghan is shown. According to the learned contents in the award are required to be proved by claimants regarding categorization of the lands. The same cannot be considered as it is. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrakant @ Pomaji Vasudev Somshetti (Died) and others reported in AIR 1991 Bombay 245. According to the learned counsel the Court has not properly applied the yardstick. 4. Mr. Gunale, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants submits that the lands are acquired for the Mandal Minor Irrigation Tank of village Moghan and Dhodre. When lands are acquired from different villages for the same project, the Court can consider the sale instances of all the said villages 7 fa 1614.15 and the same compensation will have to be awarded. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hanmabai Irana Patil (deceased- through her L.Rs.) Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through District Collector and another, reported in 2009 (4) Bom.C.R. 380 and submits that even on the ground of parity, the same compensation is to be awarded in respect of lands situated in different villages which are affected by the same project. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the sale instance is in respect of the the same village from which the lands are acquired i. e. village Moghan. The same is much prior to the notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. a. Act. If 10% addition is made, the market value would be the same i. e. Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. Even the sale deed in respect of 61 R land is of village Mandal i. e. for which project the lands of the claimants have been acquired. The rate of said land also would be in the same range as awarded by the Reference Court by adding 10% increase. 6. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment so also copies of the sale deeds relied by the claimants and referred in the judgment. 7. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the sale instances to be relied should be comparable sale instances. The Reference Court has considered sale instances Exhibit 14, 15 8 fa 1614.15 and 17. Exhibit 14 is in respect of sale of 40R land for Rs. 22,000/-. Same is dated 29th February, 1992. Exhibit 15 is sale of 60R land for Rs. 65,000/- on 20th April, 1995 and sale deed Exhibit 17 is executed on 05th May, 1995. All these sale deeds are much prior to notification U/Sec. 4 dated 18.03.2000. All these sale deeds are in respect of Jirayat lands. The Court considered average rate of Rs. 90,000/- per hector and added 10% increase per year and came to the conclusion that the market rate of Jirayat land would be Rs. 1,30,000/- per hector. In fact, the Court has to consider highest sale exemplar, still the Reference Court has awarded average of the sale prices. The lands acquired are also small chunk of lands. 8. The sale instances in respect of jirayat land of the same village can certainly be considered so also of the adjoining villages, because the lands are acquired for the minor irrigation tank of village Mandal which necessary show that they are adjoining villages and lands are situated in the same vicinity. Considering the sale instances of jirayat land, the market value would come to Rs. 1,25,000/- per hectare as the land under the sale deed is situated in the same area and village as that of the acquired land. The said sale deed certainly would be relevant to come to the conclusion as to the market value of the acquired land. 9. Section 4 notification is dated 09.03.2000. The said sale instance is five years prior to the said notification. Yesterday I 9 fa 1614.15 have decided one of the group of matters, which is acquired for the same purpose and vide the same notification wherein also several sale deeds were considered. The sale deeds are in respect of Jirayat land. The Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per hector for Jirayat land, Rs. 1,95,000/- per hector for seasonally bagayat lands and at the rate of Rs. 2,60,000/- per hector for permanent irrigated land and it has accepted the categorization of the lands as Jirayat, seasonally irrigated and bagayat lands as made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court has given plausible reasons for the same. 10. Considering the above, the Reference Court has awarded reasonable amount of compensation. The same needs no interference. The First Appeals stand dismissed. No costs. 11. In view of dismissal of appeals, the claimants are entitled for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the acquiring body. the amounts deposited. The civil applications are accordingly disposed of. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 15