:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 100 OF 1997 1 Mohammed Ismail Shaikh Since deceased through his Legal Heirs 1a) Smt Maimuma Mohamed Yusuf Saikh and ors ..Appellants Vs The S.L.A.O. and Asst. Collector Nashik Division, Nashik. ..Respondent Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for appellants. Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, AGP for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : March 16, 2009. Date : March 16, 2009. Date : March 16, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) arises from the award passed by the learned Joint District Judge at Nashik on 31/3/1993 in Land Reference No. 148 of 1987. The market rate of the acquired land came to be fixed at Rs.12.64 per sq.mtr. and other statutory benefits under the Act, awarded in addition. :2: 2. The State Government issued the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 12/1/1984 for acquiring a total of 2 H. 75.8 R. of agricultural land for expansion of Gaothan of village Harsul in Taluka Peth of Nashik District. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 12/9/1986 awarded a total amount of Rs.16016.97 ps. and other statutory benefits. The claimants were not satisfied with the said market rate and, therefore, they submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act, which application came to be referred and registered as Land Reference No. 148 of 1987. The said reference was heard along with Land Reference No. 134 of 1986. 3. The reference was not opposed by the State Government by filing any reply and none stepped in the witness box on behalf of the State Government. On the other hand, Claimant No.2 examined himself (Exh.21) and three more witneses i.e. Balu Pawar - PW 2 (Exh.27), Balu Srivastav - PW 3 (Exh.34) and Abdul Razak - PW 4 (Exh. 36) came to be examined in support of the sale instances relied upon by the claimants. :3: The Reference Court held that the sale instance at Exh.35 and the sale deed registered on 19/11/1983 for an area admeasuring 297 sq.mtrs. and for the sum of Rs.20,000/- was the only sale instance which could be taken reference as the basis for determining the market rate of the acquired land for Gaothan. Mr.Joshi the learned counsel for the claimants has challenged the award on the limited ground of fixing the market rate at 1/4th of the sale instance at Exh.35 and further granting 25% deduction for development. 4. Village Harsul undoubtedly was a small place with less than 10 members of the Village Panchayat. The acquired land admeasures almost 7 Acres and that too for expansion of the village Gaothan. PW 3 - Balu Srivastav who stated that he purchased the plot vide sale deed at Exh.35, also admitted in his cross-examination that in the market area there was no open land and he had purchased the plot from the market area for running a hotel. He also admitted that in the market area any open space was fetching competitive price. Near about police station :4: agricultural lands were located and the police station was away from the plot which he purchased. He also admitted that around village Harsul, Adivasi population was staying and, therefore, there were no sale transaction in respect of agricultural land. He also admitted that price of the plot he purchased was quoted by the vendor and he agreed to pay the same and he also had a plot adjoining to the plot he purchased. 5. It was under these circumstances, the Reference Court held that the sale deed at Exh.35 if taken as reference for fixing the market value, the market value of the land under acquisition could be only 1/4th of the same. The land acquired was not for immediate purpose of residential houses to be constructed and it was for future expansion of the village. The village did not have prospect of vast employment and was surrounded by hillocks on all side with forest land. The main occupation in the village was agriculture and cultivation of rice. 6. The Reference Court recorded that the sale deed at Exh.35 gave the market price at Rs.67.34 ps. :5: per sq.mtr. and it was very small plot of land as compared to the land under acquisition, admeasuring about 7 Acres. At the same time, the land under sale deed at Exh.35 was in the market area and the buyer wanted to expand his existing plot so as to run a hotel. The Reference Court, therefore, fixed the market value of the acquired land at 25% of Rs.67.34 per sq.mtr. i.e. Rs.16.835 per sq.mtr. In addition, for development expenditure 1/4th of the price was deducted and the market rate offered to the present claimants was fixed at Rs.12.64 per sq.mtr. We do not find any error committed by the Reference Court. More so, sale deed at Exh.35 was only in respect of an area admeasuring 297 sq.mtrs. as compared to 7 Acres of land under acquisition. Hence, we do not find any reason to reconsider the assessment made by the Reference Court to fix the market value at Rs.12.64 per sq.mtr. and, therefore, this appeal must fail. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs in cause. :6: (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)