1 F.A. ST. 16378/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 16378/2009 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur and another ...Appellants. Versus Basling Kalappa Matpathi and others ...Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 16412/2009 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur and another ...Appellants. Versus Shakuntalabai w/o Balwantrao Patil. ...Respondent. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for the appellants. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 12th Sept., 2011. PER COURT : 1. At this stage, the appeals are taken up for admission and final hearing. 2. Admit. 3. These two appeals are heard finally at the stage of admission by consent as short issue is involved. The lands are acquired by notification under section 4 dated 11/04/2002 of the Land Acquisition Act, from village Kshetraphal Tq. Udgir Dist. Latur for the purpose of construction of percolation tank no.3. The Special Land Acquisition 2 F.A. ST. 16378/2009 Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.844/- per R. The respondents in appeals filed he references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed enhanced compensation for the acquired land for Rs. 5,000/- per R. Perused the judgment of the reference Court dated 17/03/1988. The reference Court has relied on the evidence of C.W. no.2 Gangadhar s/o Mallikarjun Swami and the sale deed executed by him in respect of his land admeasuring 33 R. The land in sale instance was undisputedly from the same locality and vicinity of the acquired lands in the appeals. Witness Mr. Gangadhar has deposed that he has purchased 33 R land for total consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- which comes to 4242 per R. 4. The reference Court has relied on the same sale instance and also considered the potentiality of the lands which were acquired, and has fixed the price of the compensation at Rs.3,100/- per R and rejected the claims of the respondents of Rs.5,000/- per R. The view taken by the reference Court can not be faulted out as the amount of the compensation of Rs.3,100/- per R is found adequate and not excessive. The orders of the reference Court need not to interfere with. ORDER Both the appeals are dismissed. C.A. NO. 9031/2009 First Appeal st. No. 16378/2009 and C.A. No.9033/2009 in First Appeal St. No. 16412/2009 are dismissed. [SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] ts k/2011/Sept.12/fast16378.09 3 F.A. ST. 16378/2009