1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant. (Ori. respondent) Versus Madhav Janardhan Saptanshi, Age Major, Occu. Nil, R/o. Madhavgan, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Respondent. (Ori. claimant) Smt. B.R. Khekal, A.G.P. for State/appellant. Shri. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for respondent sole. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATE : 29th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. Smt. Khekal and Shri. Jaybhar for the claimant. Admit. The matter is finally decided at admission stage. The State feels that the award at the rate of Rs. 175/- per R. recorded by the learned Judge by order dated 28th September 1999 is on a higher pedestal, warrants interference. 2 2. There is no controversy, by virtue of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3.11.1986, the Government proposed to acquire the property. The learned Land Acquisition Officer on 17.8.1986 recorded the award and directed compensation to be paid at the rate of Rs. 55/- per R. to the claimant. 3. The claimant adduced evidence and brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the property acquired was 5 H. 88 R. and even by calculation, the rate by L.A.O. of Rs. 55/- per R., it should have been at the rate of Rs. 175/- per R. i.e. at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre. 4. The claimant produced certified copy of judgment in L.A.R. 121/1987, delivered by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, which was in relation to the land situated at village Mandavgan, which incidentally is the same village where the disputed property exists/situates. The claimant's evidence that there was a water pond (Tal) created in his land and the improvement of quality indeed was not dispelled by adding contrary evidence. However, without adverting to this fact, the accepted position is, the land in reference L.A.R. 121/1987 and the acquired land was at a nearby or may be one and half k.m., but from the same vicinity, the learned Judge has considered the same. It is curious to note, L.A.R. 121/1987 was filed prior to two years of the property acquired herein. The grant of Rs. 150/- per R. in the said L.A.R. was added by Rs. 175/- per R., as there were reasonable enhancement in 3 the prices in the intervening period. The subsequent notification needs consideration in view of general increase in the prices of land. The award by the learned reference Court in the above fact, circumstances cannot be branded to be excessive or devious the record. The appeal sans merit, dismissed. No costs. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL J.] ssc/fa519.10