1 F.A.No.185 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.185 OF 1997 Ashroba s/o Tulsiram Thombre, Age 45 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Bhosi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani since died by L.Rs.: 1. Antikabai w/o Ashroba Thombre, Age 60 years, Occu.Household, R/o Bhosi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani 2. Kalyan s/o Ashroba Thombre, Age Major, Occu.Agriculture, R/o As above 3. Dinkar s/o Ashroba Thombre, Age Major, Occu.Agriculture, R/o As above ..APPELLANTS (Orig.Petitioners) VERUSS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, P.T.& M.I.W.Parbhani ..RESPNDENTS (Orig.Respondents) Mr S.K.Adkine, Advocate for appellant Mr P.P.More, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2 F.A.No.185 of 1997 27.4.1995 in L.A.R.No.267 of 1991 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani while deciding the Reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for enhancement of the compensation amount. The appellant was the owner of the land Survey No.7/1 of village Bhosi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani. The land acquired by the respondent – authority is 7 acres and 22 gunthas. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by respondents on 24.1.1980. Award was passed in July 1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per acre. Being aggrieved with the said award, a Reference was preferred by the appellant before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani. Reference Court, after considering the evidence oral as well as documentary, partly allowed the reference by increasing the rate from Rs.1,200/- per acre to Rs.5,000/- per acre for the acquired land and awarded other consequential benefits to the appellant. Being aggrieved with the said order, this appeal is preferred, wherein compensation is demanded at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per acre. 2. In the appeal, it is contended that the land acquired is irrigated, black soil where crop of cotton was taken. The appellant has suffered a loss of Rs.42,000/- on account of the standing crops in the acquired land. It is further contended that there were fruit bearing mango trees about 30 to 35 years old and the income from those trees was at the rate of Rs.500/- per year and hence, huge monetary loss has been 3 F.A.No.185 of 1997 caused to the appellant. The Reference Court has failed to appreciate all these factors while fixing the rate of the compensation. The compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre is meagre. The land is 8 to 9 Kms away from Jintur, connected with transport and good facilities. The appellant has produced sale instances at Exh.21, 22 and 23. In Exh.23, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 24,000/-. He submitted that land Survey Nos.166/1 and 167/1 was acquired and the reference in respect of the said land was made bearing L.A.R.No.167/1988 wherein the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per acre. He submitted that in another reference, i.e. L.A.R.No.79 of 1984 of Survey No.161, the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs.6,000/- per acre, which the Reference Court ought to have considered. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5900. In the said case, the compensation of the land was earlier fixed on the belting system and the Court held that irrespective of fertility, potentiality, nearness from the road etc., if the lands are acquired for the same project, then the parties are to be given the uniform rate. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, per contra, argued that the claim made by the appellant is exorbitant and arbitrary. He pointed out that the sale instances at Exh.21, 22 and 23 are post dated and, therefore, the consideration amount which was drawn by those lands are not comparable. He further submitted that Reference Court 4 F.A.No.185 of 1997 while deciding the issue of enhancement has substantially allowed the claim of the appellant by increasing the rate from Rs.1,200/- per acre to Rs.5,000/- per acre and the said increase is adequate in view of the market value, location, and the nature of the land situated in the village Bhosi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani. He further submitted that the amount of the award admittedly increased in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988 and it was granted as Rs.24,000/- per acre. However, the facts in the said case are distinguishable on the ground that notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the said land was dated 27.6.1985 i.e. four years later to the notification issued in 1980, in respect of the land of the present appellant. 4. Following point arises for determination : (i) Whether compensation can be enhanced ? And : Yes. (ii) Whether appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.24,000/- or Rs.7,000/- per acre ? Ans : No. Sale deeds Exh.21, 22 and 23 are produced by the appellant. However, sale instances of the land in Exh.22 and 23 are post dated i.e. 7.1.1983 and 21.5.1984 where the compensation was awarded at Rs.12,000/- and Rs.24,000/- per acre, respectively. It is to be noted that Exh.21 a sale deed dated 25.4.1980 discloses that three acres of land was sold for a total consideration of Rs.17,000/-. Thus, per acre the rate of the land was fixed at Rs.5,650/- per acre approximately. 5 F.A.No.185 of 1997 The Reference Court, therefore, based on sale instance at Exh.21 has awarded enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. 5. The other land i.e. land Survey No.166/1, 167/1 was acquired by the acquiring authority for the project of percolation tank, for which the Reference was made at L.A.R.No.167/1988. It was decided on 30.8.1991 and the amount of compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. Though the land is acquired for the same project, the said acquisition cannot be compared with the acquisition of the land in dispute in the case in hand. The lands acquired in the case of Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and ors. (supra), were acquired by notifications dated 1.6.1977, 22.7.1977, 28.3.1978 and 5.5.1978. The notifications referred though several, appears to be issued within a period of one year. After the gap of four years, the value of the land undoubtedly increases. On this ground, as the notification was issued four years later, the case of Harinder Pal Singh is distinguishable. It is distinguished on the ground of the date of the notification and which is a material factor affecting the value of the land. The land in the case in hand is acquired by notification dated 24.1.1980 for percolation tank and the land in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988 was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act in the year 1985. Thus, the notification of acquisition under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the land in L.A.R.No.167 of 1988 nearly four and half year later. Thus, after a considerable gap of 4 and ½ years, the value of the land was increased. On this ground, the ratio in the case of Union of India Vs. 6 F.A.No.185 of 1997 Harinder Pal Singh is not applicable. No evidence is produced by the claimant on the point of annual income. 6. However, land Survey No.161 in L.A.R.No.79 of 1984 is found comparable to the land in appeal. The said land is acquired by the same notification and it is nearer to the land in question. Thus, considering connectivity to Taluka Jintur, fertility, location and price given to other lands, it is appropriate and just to increase amount of compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per acre. 7. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court is set aside. The rate of the compensation is hereby increased from Rs. 5,000/- per acre to Rs.6,000/- per acre and the order of the consequential benefits is maintained. Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (vvr/185.97fa)