1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. F.A.NO.870 OF 2009. The State of Mah. ..vs.. Bhimrao Govinda Lodam (dead) through L.Rs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 31st JULY, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.Dhote, learned A.G.P. for the State/appellant. 2. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Ad hoc Additional District Judge in L.A.C.No.238 of 2002. The said reference was made by the claimant. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at Rs.38,500/- per hectare. The claimants felt aggrieved thereby and preferred the reference before the district court. 2 3. The learned AGP for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the reference court is excessive and therefore, this appeal should be admitted. 4. After having gone through the judgment of the learned district court, it is apparent that the land out of the same survey number was acquired by the Government in the year 1987-88 and a reference was made to the district court in the said matter and the district court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.24000/- per acre. The learned judge of the lower court has relied on the decision of the district court in L.A.C.No.27 of 1990 wherein the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.24000/- per acre. The present land, which is under acquisition, is out of same survey number for which the compensation was determined by the district court in LAC No.27 of 1990. It is, therefore, clear that the learned judge of the reference court has rightly taken into consideration this factor and has rightly awarded the compensation at Rs.40,800/- per acre after 3 taking into consideration 7% increase in the price every year. I do not, therefore, find that the learned judge of the reference court has committed any error in awarding the compensation. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute