1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 125 OF 1990 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1990 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 1990 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 OF 1990 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 133 OF 1990 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 134 OF 1990 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 108 OF 1990 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 1990 State of Maharashtra & Anr. ............. ......Appellants. V/s Ravalu Yellappa Kambale, Ningo Ramu Gurav, Vishnu Appu Patil & Ors., Gavadu Ramu Mangaonkar, Ningappa Gavadu Patil, Ramchandra Appa Patil, Smt.Shailabai Balkrishna Pasupaleti..... . ......Respondents. Ms.G.P.Mulekar, AGP For the appellants. Mr.S.M.Kamble, Adv. For respondents. 2 CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 16th JANUARY, 2009. PC: 1. Heard. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. As common question of fact and law is involved in these appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. These first appeals are directed against the award passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in a reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation and hence these appeals are filed questioning the correctness of the award. 3. The State Government took a decision to construct a dam on river Tillari. The project is known as “Tillari Hydro Electrical Project”. For the said project lands from village Tudiye and other adjacent villages came to be acquired for submergence. The respondents were the land holders of different plots of agricultural lands in village Tudiye. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Government on 30.5.78. The said notification was followed by notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Individual notices were alos issued under section 9 of the act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer after making an inquiry passed separate awards in favour of the respondents in these appeals and a given sum of compensation was offered/paid to the claimants. 3 As stated herein above, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the respondents moved an application under section 18 and accordingly the same was referred by the Collector to the Court for adjudications. 4. The reference court has passed the award enhancing the amount of compensation on the basis of judgment rendered in earlier land reference being Land Reference No.56/84. In Land Reference No.56/84 sale instance that was relied upon was purchase of 28 ars of land by a society named Chandgad Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Limited for a consideration of Rs.2,501/-. On the basis of the said sale instance compensation was awarded under an award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference No.56/84. The State Government had preferred an appeal in the High Court against the said judgment delivered in Land Reference No.56/84. The appeal filed by the State Government bearing No.69/91 came to be allowed by this Court by judgment dated 18.7.2000. Learned Single Judge who delivered the said judgment rejected the sale instance on the ground that the land purchased was situated on State highway having non-agricultural potentiality and was intended to be used for housing offices and shops. The said sale instance has also been rejected on the ground that the same is from different village which is at some distance. Learned Single Judge further found that the transaction where under the Society has purchased 20 ars of land is not a comparable sale instance. The judgment in Land Reference No.56/84 4 passed by the District Judge came to be reversed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-state has submitted that the very basis for enhancement of compensation by Reference Court having collapsed on account of allowing the appeal preferred by the State, the judgment impugned in the present appeals deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted that barring the judgment in Land Reference No.56/84 no other sale instance has been relied upon by the Reference Judge for enhancement of amount of compensation. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants appears to be well merited. 5. In the judgment in Land Reference No.56/84, lands were classified into four categories depending upon the crops namely (1) sugarcane lands, (2) paddy lands, (3) other crops lands and (4) pot kharab lands. All the issues are dealt with in para 8 of the judgment and the perusal thereof clearly reveals that the evidence relating to the sale transaction reffered to above has been considered and relied upon in the judgment in Land Reference No.56/84. Placing reliance on the said judgment and without considering any other factor, the market value of each category of land has been decided. On the basis of valuation arrived at in Land Reference No.56/84, the lands in these appeals also came to be classified and valued accordingly. 6. Once the judgment in Land Reference No.56/84 have been set aside, the subsequent judgments following the said judgment cannot hold the field when the determination of the market 5 value is based solely on the earlier judgment which has been set aside. In the gropup of these appeals, it is undisputed that barring the jdugment in Land Reference No.56/84 no other material has been relied upon. Thus the impugned judgments are rendered unsustainable in law. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that LPA has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the LPA is pending admission. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the observations made in the judgment in between Union of India Vs. Mangat (dead) by L.Rs. And others reported in (2000) 10 S.C.C. 609 and to be precised in para 9 of the said judgment. “ We are informed that the compensation which was awarded by the Additional District Judge has already been paid to the claimants. The payment was made more than a decade ago. In this view of the matter, and considering the length of time which has elapsed, we do not think it is in the interest of justice that the award of the Additional District Judge should be interfered with. The result of this would be that the judgment of the High Copurt is set aside and the amount awa5ded by the Additional District Judge is affirmed, as a result of which the comepsnation of the acquired land stands determined at Rs. 59,290 per acre. Parties to bear their own costs.” 6 The learned counsel has submitted that as the compensation in the present appeals was awarded and paid to the claimants long back, the impugned judgment passed by the reference court should not be interfered with. 8. Perused the judgment relied upon. The course adopted by the Supreme Court in para 9 is referable to the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has not laid down any law which would bind all the courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in para 9of the judgment. After deciding the question raised on merit equalities are adjusted by the Suipreme Court in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Such powers are not available to this court. Hence as prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent, no direction akin to the one given by the Supreme Court in para 9 can be given in these appeals. In the result the appeals filed by the State Government are allowed. The impugned judgments/awards passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 95/84 dt. 31- 1-89, 54/84 dt. 4-2-89, 96/84 dt. 4-2-89, 93/84 dt. 31-1-89, 91/84 dt. 31-1-89, 27/84 dt. 3-2-89, 92/84 dt. 31-1-89 and 33/84 dt. 3-2-89 are quashed and set aside. There shall be no orders in regard to costs. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)