IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No. 1015 OF 1987 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ) Ratnagiri ) Appellant Vs. Pandurang Mahadeo Bhide & Ors. Respondents Ms. S. P. Manchekar, AGP for the appellant. Mr. D. K. Ghaisas, for the respondent Nos. 2A to 2C. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : JUNE 26, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT . This is an appeal against the order dated 20th December 1986 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ratnagiri, whereby the application of the respondents/claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been considered and allowed by holding that the respondents/claimants have proved that compensation so awarded was low and inadequate. 2. While granting the enhanced compensation, the learned Judge has considered the material as well as evidence led by the parties and the market raid has paid to the claimants as Special Land Acquisition Officer failed to do so in spite of evidence of 2-3 witnesses to prove sale deeds of the land of the area - 2 - of the same village. Those sale transaction as recorded in paragraph 15, 16 and 17 has taken note of rate, sufficient to assist to arrive at reasonable compensation, as granted by the learned Judge. By observing "I hold that Rs.1,000/- per guntha be the price of Nav-Kharip and that of Kharip would be Rs.1250/- per guntha " and accordingly grated the compensation. There is no contra material to interfere with the said reasoning given by the learned Judge. 3. The grant of market-price/value based upon the material evidence available on the date of acquisition/notification is just and cannot be said to be in excess, as contended by the appellant, in view of the above observation. 4. The above appeal admittedly is filed after 31st March 1982. Therefore, in view of section 23(1)(a), read with section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, appellants are entitled to all benefits, i.e. interest and solatium, in accordance with law. 5. Even the finding with regard to trees, is considered in paragraph 22, based on the evidence and material available on record, it cannot be said that it is unreasonable and improper. Considering the market - 3 - price and the fact that during the tendency of the proceeding, the claimants are added as parties, learned counsel has passed the following order- "The claimant Sari Pandurang Naiades Bhide is entitled to the following amounts for the acquired lands, on behalf of the entire joint family as under- 1) Kharip land : 0.25.3 Ares awarded by the Court Rs.23,276/- Rs.1250 - 330 = 920/- 2) Nav-Kharip land 0-14-0 Area, amount awarded by the Court Rs.1000 - 210 = 790/- Rs.11,060/- 3) Parkas land, Hectors 2-01-0 Ares amount awarded by the Court Rs.750 - 110 = 640/-. Rs.1,28,640/ 4) Kharaba 0-02-0 Ares, amount awarded by the Court Rs.5 - 2 = 3/-. Rs. 6/- - 4 - ------------ Rs.1,62,982/ Plus Enhanced amount for all trees. Rs. 5,000/- ------------ Total enhanced compensation Rs.1,67,982/ ------------ Out of the said amount, claimant No.2 Shri Deo Pandharinath through its Managing trustees and Vahivatdars are entitled 50% amount of the price of the land S. No.89 H.No. 1.0-16-3 Ares and Navakharip land S. No.89 H. No. 1.0-06-0 Ares on the above rate, the total compensation of both kinds of lands in Rs.26m375/-. So the claimant No.2 is entitled Rs.13,187.50. Claimants are entitled 30% solatium on the above said enhanced amount and interest on the said amount at 9% p.a. from the date of acquisition till the payment, and proportionate costs of this proceeding. Referee to bear their own costs." - 5 - 6. In view of the above reasoning therefore, there is no case made out by appellant to interfere in the finding so arrived at and the compensation so awarded is reasonable and within the framework of law, and in view of this, first appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Sd/- [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]