1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.506/2010. (The State of Mah. and Ors. Vs. Babasaheb Madhav Sirsath and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SD Kaldate, AGP for State; Mr.SL Bhapkar, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ________ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23 rd March, 2010. ... 1) Heard learned AGP extensively. 2) The award under Land Reference No. 417/2003 and others are questioned by the State. 3) The learned Judge in paragraph 15 of the order has stated - " The Judge should sit in the arm chair of said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer same market value which the court proposed to fix for acquired lands in available market conditions." 4) Before the learned Reference Court, two sale instances, one being dated 26.3.1997 (Exhibit-23) for sale of 16 R. land and another is dated 13.10.1996 (Exhibit-25) for sale of 16 R. land in 2 favour of Deelip, were placed and these two sale-deeds are considered by the learned Judge. I find that both the sale instances are pre-notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The rate of per Are land in the sale-deed dated 26.3.1997 was Rs.937 while in the later sale deed, the rate of per Are land was Rs.968/- The contention, that it was a small piece of land, was also considered and the learned Judge graciously had deductions of 33% in the average market value of the lands covered under the sale instances and consequently reached to the finding of fetching of Rs.650/- per Are. This arrangement carried by the learned Judge, though is within the bracket of guess work, however, it augments the situation. No error could be said to have irrupted magnifying the same. Consequently, no merit in the First Appeal, it is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa506.10