1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.619 of 1993 The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of the instance of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Appellant/ori. Jalgaon) opponent versus 1. Shri Abhiman Hiraman Patil age 58 years, occup. Agril. 2. Sau Malatibai w/o Abhiman Patil age 38 years, occup, nil 3. Dinkar Abhiman Patil, age 21 years, occup. Agriculturist All r/o Mangarul, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon. Respondents/ or.applicants Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P.for the appellant. Shri Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Shri V.T.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Respondents. 2 CORAM: P.R. Borkar, J. Judgment reserved on 24.6.2009 Judgment pronounced on 29.6.2009 Oral Judgment 1. This is an appeal preferred by State, being aggrieved by judgment and award passed by Civil Judge,Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 80 of 1986 decided on 29.4.1988. 2. Some of the facts giving rise to this appeal are that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were the owners of block No. 30 situated at village Mangrul, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon. Their land admeasuring 38 Hectare was acquired for construction of Mangrul Minor (II) Distributory of right bank canal of Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 25.1.1983. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded market price of Rs.18,000/= per hectare. 3. Being dissatisfied with the said award, claimants-present respondents filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed Rs.30,000/= per acre as market price. They 3 also prayed Rs.5,000/= as damages for severance and Rs.5,000/= as compensation for loss of crops for two years. Learned reference court allowed the market price at Rs.75,000/= per hectare, but refused to grant severance charges and compensation for loss of crops. 4. Being aggrieved with the rate of Rs.75,000/= per hectare this appeal is filed by State and Respondents have filed cross objection as the amount was was not awarded towards severance and loss of crops. 5. Heard learned A.G.P. Shri Suryawanshi for the appellant and Shri Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents. At the time of evidence, the Respondents-claimants have relied upon sale instances at Exhibits 11 and 17 and for proving those sale instances, they have examined one Dattatraya Rajput at Exh.10 and Ramakant Badgujar at Exh.16.Evidence of Dattatraya shows that he purchased 1 Hectare 8 R. land bearing Gat No.599 situated at village Adawad, for Rs.51,000/=. He deposed that he purchased jirayat land and that the village boundary of Mangrul is adjacent to village Adawad on eastern side. In cross examination, Dattatraya has denied the suggestion that the land purchased by him was bagayat land. 4 6. If we consider the sale deed at Exhibit 11, it is clear that the land along with one well was sold. So, the witness Dattatraya is not telling the truth. It is clear from the sale deed itself that the land was sold along with well. In other words, it was a land having irrigation facility. Abuttals also show that the land was just adjacent to village locality and on eastern side of it, there is a road. The witness has also not stated truth regarding situation of the villages correctly. PW-2 Dattatraya has stated in his cross examination that village Adawad is second big village in Chopda taluka, having population of 16,000. It is at a distance of 2 kilometers from Mangrul Phata. Adawad village is 5 kilometers. In other words, village Mangrul was not adjacent to village Adawad as distance between two villages was about 7 kilometers. The sale instance in question is of August 1975. It is nowhere evidence that sale instance from village Mangrul itself was not available. So, there is no reason why sale instance from same village is not relied upon. 7. Second sale instance proved on record by witness Ramakant is at Exhibit 17, under which 90 R land was purchased for Rs.45,000/=. It has come in his evidence that village Mangrul was near Chopda. He deposed that the land was purchased by Municipal Corporation, Chopda, for garden 5 purposes. So, land was in the Chopda Municipal limits. Actual distance between Mangrul and Chopda is not stated. As per learned Advocate of the Respsondent, distance of 50 kilometer can be said to be near and comparable. It is admitted that the land was at a distance of 50 ft. from Hatnur main canal. So, this is a land situated almost at Chopada and, therefore, it cannot be compared with the land at Mangrul. The sale instances relied upon are of other places and not of nearby or comparable lands. No other evidence is led to prove prevailing market price. 8. In my view, the learned judge has wrongly considered both the sale instances as comparable. Moreover, even without reading deposition of the witnesses and going through the sale deeds, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the sale deeds were in respect of jirayat land and hence, awarded Rs.75,000/= per hectare when price of 1 hectare 8 R. land as per Exhibit 11 was Rs. 51,000/= and for 90 R. land, the price was Rs. 45,000/= and both lands were irrigated lands. In the circumstances, awarding compensation at Rs. 75,000/= was clearly illegal and improper. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the decree passed by the reference court deserves to be set aside. So far as cross objection is concerned, there is a prayer for compensation for loss of crops and charges for severance. However, 6 there is no evidence to indicate that by acquisition of 38 R. land, remaining land was divided in such a way as to make the same inconvenient for cultivation. The trial court has rightly held that there is no sufficient evidence on record to grant either of the said claims. 8. Hence, appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the reference court is set aside. Reference is dismissed for want of comparable sale instances. Cross objections are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/oo fa619.93