1 fa1078-98,887-02 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1078 OF 1998 Maharudrayya Shivlingyya Swami .. Appellant (Hiremath) (Orig. Claimant) V/s. The State of Maharashtra through .. Respondents The Collector of Kolhapur & Anr. (Orig. opponent) .... Mr. Rajesh Parab h/f. Mr. D. S. Sawant for the appellant. Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for respondents. .... ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.887 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8125 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra through .. Appellants The Collector of Kolhapur & Anr. (Orig. Claimants) V/s. Maharudrayya Shivlingyya Swami .. Respondent (Hiremath) (Orig. opponent) .... Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Parab h/f. Mr. D. S. Sawant for the respondent. .... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JUNE 24, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : These Cross Appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 2 fa1078-98,887-02 2. The challenge in these Appeals is to the same Judgment and Award made by Civil Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquired land is a land bearing Gat Nos.611,613, 620, 686 situated at Terani, Taluka Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur. The claimant is entitled to the ½ share in the said land which is equivalent to 98.6 guntha. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 19th December, 1991 for the purpose of construction of Minor Irrigation Tank. Award was made on 17th March, 1993 under Section 11 of the said Act. Compensation was not accepted by the claimants and at his instance, the reference was made under Section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court has granted enhancement in market value in the sum of Rs.18,921/-. In addition, statutory benefits have been granted to the claimants. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants invited attention of the Court to the sale deed at Exhibit 26 which is dated 20th March,1992 executed by one Gundappa Mallappa Chaugule in favour of one Mallapa Mutnal. The sale deed is in respect of land bearing Gat No.1005 in the same village. The share of about four guntha of the vendor was sold under the said sale deed at the cost of Rs.8000/-. He submitted that evidence of the purchaser was not 3 fa1078-98,887-02 seriously challenged by the respondent in which he stated that the acquired land was comparable to the land subject matter of the sale deed. He submitted that the sale deed was in a close proximity of the relevant date which reflects the market value of Rs.2000/- per guntha. He submitted that for the share of the Appellant which was equivalent to the area of 98.65 gunthas, market value at the rate of only Rs.570/- per guntha has been granted by the trial Court. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the claimant is entitled to enhancement in the market value. The learned AGP appearing for the State Government submitted that the sale instance dated 20th March, 1992 at Exhibit 26 is in respect of area of only four gunthas and, therefore, for determining the market value of area of 98 guntha, the said instance cannot be comparable. He submitted that even if the lands were of the same quality, a deduction of at least 70% ought to have been made from Rs.2000/- per guntha and, therefore, the market value fixed by the Reference Court will have to be reduced. His submission is that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Relevant date for determination of market value in the present case is 19th December, 1991. The date of the sale deed at Exhibit 26 is of March, 1992. Thus, it is a post notification sale. However, 4 fa1078-98,887-02 considering the time gap, the same cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that it is a post notification sale in as much as the sale has taken place only three months after the relevant date. The claimant in his examination-in-chief stated that the acquired land and the sale deed lands were of the same quality. There is no cross- examination made of the claimant on this aspect. However, he admitted that the sale deed land was at the distance of one kilometer away from village Terni in which the acquired land is situated. The purchaser under the sale instance was also examined as a witness. There is no cross-examination made of the purchaser by suggesting that the market value reflected from the sale deed was in excess of the market value. Only relevant suggestion given in the cross-examination is that he has purchased the land for construction of a house. The correctness of the said suggestion was denied by the purchaser. Therefore, as far as quality of the land is concerned, the acquired land will be comparable with the sale deed land. However, the sale deed land is at a distance of one kilometer away from the village Terni. Moreover, the area of the sale deed land is only four gunthas and the share of the claimant in acquired land is of more than 98 gunthas. The price of such a large area of land admeasuring 98 gunthas will be certainly less than smaller plots of land and especially a plot of land admeasuring only four gunthas. On account of largess of area, a substantial deduction will 5 fa1078-98,887-02 have to be made in the market value. The deduction will be 70% to 75%. Thus, the market value fixed at the rate of Rs.570/- per guntha cannot be faulted with. 5. Therefore, no case is made out for grant of enhancement of the market value. The market value determined by the Reference Court is reasonable and no interference is called for in that behalf. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. First Appeal No.1078 of 1998 and First Appeal No.887 of 2002 are dismissed of with no order as to costs. ii. Civil Application No.8125 of 1999 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)