(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 2232 of 2009 (In First Appeal No. 2352 of 2009) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through Regional Officer, Division at Latur. .. Applicant. versus 1. Balu Chima Kaile. 2. Bhagwat Pandurant Walse. 3. The State of Maharashtra, through the District Collector, Latur. .. Respondents. .......................... W I T H Civil Application No. 2234 of 2009 (In First Appeal No. 2350 of 2009) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through Regional Officer, Division at Latur. .. Applicant. versus 1. Ramchandra Sopan Kaile. (2) 2. The State of Maharashtra, through the District Collector, Latur. .. Respondents. .......................... W I T H Civil Application No. 2236 of 2009 (In First Appeal No. 2351 of 2009) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through Regional Officer, Division at Latur. .. Applicant. versus 1. Baburao Eknath Kaile, Died per L.R., Laxman Baburao Kaile. 2. The State of Maharashtra, through the District Collector, Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H Civil Application No. 2238 of 2009 (In First Appeal No. 2349 of 2009) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through Regional Officer, Division at Latur. .. Applicant. (3) versus 1. Kisan Mahadu Boke. 2. The State of Maharashtra, through the District Collector, Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H Civil Application No. 2240 of 2009 (In First Appeal No. 2348 of 2009) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through Regional Officer, Division at Latur. .. Applicant. versus 1. Milind Khanderao Aurandkar. 2. Ajay Khanderao Aurandkar. 3. Malatibai w/o. Khanderao Aurandkar. 4. The State of Maharashtra, through the District Collector, Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... (4) W I T H Civil Application No. 2242 of 2009 (In First Appeal No. 2332 of 2009) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through Regional Officer, Division at Latur. .. Applicant. versus 1. Sayyed Ibrahim Hasansab. 2. Sayyed Abdul Sattar s/o. Hasansab. 3. Sayyed Abdul Raheman Hasansab. 4. Sayyed Abdul Gaffar Hasansab. 5. Bismillah Begum w/o. Sayyed Amir. 6. The State of Maharashtra, through the District Collector, Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the respondents viz. original claimants. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents viz. State and its authorities. (5) *************** CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. The appellants have filed the present appeals, challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned IIIrd Joint Civil Judge [Senior Division], Latur, dated 29th August 2008. 2. A group of Reference, challenging the award granted by the Collector, for acquisition of land in village Khandapur [Taluka & District : Latur], in File No. 1992/LNQ/CR-6, was filed by the respondents claimants before the reference court. 3. The Collector had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 255/- per R. It was the contention of the respondents claimants, that the land acquired was at a distance of only 6 to 8 kilometers from Latur. 4. Perusal of the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge of the reference court would reveal that the learned Judge has not relied on any of the comparable sale instances while enhancing compensation. The learned Judge has only by adopting process of conjunctures and surmises and observing that the land for MIDC cannot be acquired in a remote place, and taking into consideration the (6) compensation which is granted in case of some other land for some other village, has come to the conclusion that the rate of Rs. 6000/- per R. would be adequate compensation. 5. Perusal of the entire judgment would reveal that the judgment is based on only conjunctures and surmises without considering any evidence. The learned Judge was at least expected to give some reasons, as to why he has jumped to a conclusion that the compensation from Rs. 255/- per R. was required to be increased to Rs. 6000/- per R. 6. This Bench is assigned with the present roster with effect from 20th July 2009. In this period of ten weeks, we have come across dozens of matters decided by the same learned Judge (Shri V.G. Ghodchar). In all the matters, we have found that the learned Judge has enhanced the compensation without giving any valid reasons. The compensation, on occasions, has been enhanced more than 20 times, 30 times than the one granted by the Collector. No doubt, that such a enhanced compensation could have been granted, had there been evidence available in that respect. However, in all the cases, we have found that the learned Judge only on the basis of conjunctures and surmises, has increased the compensation manifold. We find that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court or this court, while deciding the cases before him. 7. The land acquisition cases involve a huge money which come from the pocket of tax payers. Such a litigation cannot be dealt (7) with in a cavalier and casual manner, as has been done by the learned Judge of the reference court. 8. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to grant stay to the award, subject to the condition that the appellant deposits fifty percent amount under the award within a period of eight weeks from today. 9. Hence, we grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause "A" of the Civil Applications, on condition that the appellant deposits fifty percent amount under the respective awards, in this court, within a period of eight weeks from today. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Registrar General of this court and also to the learned Principal District Judge, Latur, (both by fax) with a direction that the Land Acquisition References pending before the said Judge (Shri V.J. Ghodchar) be withdrawn from the said Judge with immediate effect. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca2232etc