{1} fa963.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.963 OF 2011 Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division, Osmanabad, Sinchan Bhavan, Anand Nagar, Osmanabad. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Osmanabad. 2 Sandipan Sakharam Chavan, age: 67 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Ganegaon, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.968 OF 2011 Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division, Osmanabad, Sinchan Bhavan, Anand Nagar, Osmanabad. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Osmanabad. 2 Vinayak Ambadas Chavan, age: 52 years, Occ: Agri., {2} fa963.11.odt R/o Ganegaon, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. Respondents AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2011 Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division, Osmanabad, Sinchan Bhavan, Anand Nagar, Osmanabad. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Osmanabad. 2 Manik Ambadas Chavan (died, through L.Rs.): 2-A Satyabhan Manikrao Chavan, age: major, Occ: Agri., R/o Ganegaon, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. 2-B Praful Manikrao Chavan, age: major, Occ: Agri., R/o Ganegaon, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. 2-C Sudhir Manikrao Chavan, (died, through L.Rs.): 2-C-a Prafulatta w/o Sudhir Chavan, age: 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o Ganegaon, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. {3} fa963.11.odt 2-C-b Deepa d/o Sudhir Chavan, age: 17 years, u/g of mother, Prafulatta, R/o as above. 2-C-c Sanket s/o Sudhir Chavan, age: 15 years, u/g of mother, Prafulatta, R/o as above. 2-C-d Samarth s/o Sudhir Chavan, age: 13 years, u/g of mother, Prafulatta, R/o as above. 2-D Bhausaheb Manikrao Chavan, age: major, Occ: Agri., R/o As above. 2-E Kakasaheb Manikrao Chavan, (died, through L.Rs): 2-E-a Suvarna Kakasaheb Chavan, age: major, Occ: Household, R/o Ganegaon, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. 2-E-b Vishal Kakasaheb Chavan, age: 15 years, u/g of mother Suvarna, R/o as above. 2-E-c Ku.Puja Kakasaheb Chavan, age: 17 years, u/g of mother Suvarna, R/o as above. Respondents AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1043 OF 2011 Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division, {4} fa963.11.odt Osmanabad, Sinchan Bhavan, Anand Nagar, Osmanabad. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Osmanabad. 2 Uttam Sakharam Chavan, age: 62 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Ganegaon, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. Respondents Mr.G.B.Rajale, advocate for the appellant/S. Mr.K.S.Patill, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 10 th June, 2011 PER COURT: 1 These are the appeals presented by Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation - the acquiring body raising exception to the judgment and award passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, on 29.04.2010 in a group of four land acquisition references. 2 The lands belonging to respondents - original claimants came to be acquired for the purposes of construction of Sakat Medium Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 21.03.1995 and after following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 11.10.1995 and {5} fa963.11.odt determined the value of the acquired land @ Rs.37,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs.12,000/- per acre approximately. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered applications requesting for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired property. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per hectare. 3 In order to substantiate their case, claimants have placed reliance on the evidence in the form of comparable sale instances. Exhibit-53 is the copy of sale deed dated 22.02.1990 placed on record by the claimants. One Pandurang purchased 80 ares of land out of G.No. 219 from Khanderao of village Walwad for consideration of Rs.73,000/-. P.W.4 Pandurang has deposed on behalf of claimants, who has stated that quality of the acquired land is similar to the quality of the land covered by the sale instance placed on record at Exhibit-53. The distance of the acquired land and sale instance is one and half Kms. The Reference Court, therefore, found the sale instance placed on record at Exhibit-53, which has been proved by P.W.4 Pandurang – purchaser of the property, to be comparable with the acquired property and can be treated as foundation for determining value of the acquired land on the date of Section 4 Notification. It is needless to state that in spite of giving ample opportunity, the acquiring body did not lead any evidence. Photo-Copy of the sale deed dated 09.12.1991 is placed on record, however, the acquiring {6} fa963.11.odt body did not deem it necessary to place on record certified copy of the sale instance and prove the same by examining witness. In the absence of there being any evidence led on behalf of acquiring body or State Government, the Reference Court was justified in accepting the evidence placed on record by the claimants. The Reference Court arrived at a conclusion that the market price on the relevant date i.e. on the date of issuance of Section 4 Notification, can be arrived at Rs.30,000/- per acre. On consideration of the evidence recorded by the Reference Court and after hearing the arguments advanced by learned A.G.P. appearing for the State, I am convinced that the view taken by the Reference Court is quite reasonable and the enhancement granted is quite moderate. 4 For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are devoid of substance. 5 The appeals stand dismissed. Pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/fa963.11