1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.3262 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and another. ...APPELLANTS (Ori.Respondents) VERSUS Uttam Babpurao Dhobale, Age major, occup. Agri., r/o Kada, Tq. Ashti, Dist.Beed. ...RESPONDENTS (Original claimant) ... WITH FIRST APPEAL No.3263 of 2009 The State of Maharashtra and another. ...APPELLANTS (Ori.Respondents) VERSUS Shankar Bapu Dhobale, Age major, Occu.Agril., r/o Kada, Tal.Ashti, Dist.Beed. ...RESPONDENTS (Original claimant) ... WITH 2 FIRST APPEAL NO.3264 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and another. ...APPELLANTS (Ori.Respondents) VERSUS Malhari Babpurao Dhobale, Age major, Occu.Agri., r/o Kada, Tq.Ashti, Dist.Beed. ...RESPONDENTS (Original claimant) ... Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P., for the appellants. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4th Jan.,2010 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the appellant State. 2. The award in the respective Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned Reference Court and, enhancement thereof, is subject of challenge by the State. 3. I have gone through the respective 3 award/judgment of the Reference Court. The learned Judge has considered the sale deed at Exh. 17, which is of 1995, while the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is of 18.6.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer has determined the value at the rate of Rs.650/- per R. while the Reference Court has made it at Rs. 1,000/- per R. The assessment carried by the learned Reference Court, apparently, is in tune with the sale instance which is approximately 3 to 4 years prior to the notification under Section 4. The appreciation carried by the learned Reference Court is naturally in tune with the available record and it cannot be said that an exorbitant award is declared by squeezing the rights of the State. No merit. Respective appeals are dismissed. No costs. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] ... agp/fa3262-09gr