( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 336 OF 1993 Satwa s/o Tukaram Kamble, Since deceased, by L.R. Pandurang s/o Satwa Kamble, R/o Mundhal, Tq. Kalamnuri, District Parbhani. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, UPP Kalamnuri, Purna Project, Kalamnuri RESPONDENTS (Appeal against this respondent is dismissed vide Additional Registrar’s order dt. 11-07-1995) ..... Mr. B.S. Kudale, advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th November, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against judgement rendered by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) case No. 153/1991 under section 18 of ( 2 ) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby compensation in respect of the acquired land of the appellant was enhanced at rate of Rs. 4500/- per acre. 2. Indisputably, original claimant Satwa held agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 9/2, admeasuring 2 hectares 10 Ares and Survey No. 8/4, admeasuring 1 hectare 00 Ares, situated at village Mundhal, under Kalamnuri Tahsil. Both the lands were acquired by the respondents for public purpose, namely, “Upper Penganga Project”. A notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16-12-1976 and was duly published in the Government Gazette. Another notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Revenue Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, on 12-02-1979 and was published in Government Gazette dated 22-03-1979. He determined compensation of Rs. 7750/- which was roughly on basis of finding that the lands could have fetched market price of Rs. 1000/- per acre. A notification was issued under section 11 and the deceased claimant was called upon to accept the ( 3 ) amount. The amount was accepted under protest. The deceased claimant sought Reference to the civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. By his letter dated 24-01-1991, such a Reference was forwarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same was entertained by the civil Court. 3. The case of the deceased claimant was that the market value of the acquired lands was much more. He alleged that he had claimed compensation at rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. According to him, both the lands were quite fertile. He used to receive good income of kharip and rubbi crops from the lands. He further alleged that there was fertility of lands available for sale at village Mundhal. He further alleged that the lands situated at village Masod, Dhanora, Wakadi, Shivani, and Dongargaon were being sold at Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per acre. He, therefore, submitted that there was no proper evaluation of the market value of the acquired lands. Hence, he sought compensation at enhanced rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for his total 7 acres 30 gunthas land. Thus, he claimed Rs. 77,500/- by ( 4 ) way of compensation. After deduction of the amount received, the claim was put forth to the tune of Rs. 69,750/-. The Reference Court awarded enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,125/-. Hence, this second appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. I have gone through the record and proceedings with their assistance. 5. Mr. Kudale would submit that compensation is awarded in respect of other land holders vide First Appeal No. 109/1994 alongwith other similar matters at rate of Rs. 9000/- per acre and also by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 128/1985 and other similar first appeals at rate of Rs. 9000/- per acre. He also invited my attention to the Apex Court’s judgement in “Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others” (2005 AIR SCW 5900). The Apex Court held that the lands situated in five (5) different villages could be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. It was ( 5 ) observed in the given case that entire area was in stage of development and different villages were capable of being developed in the same manner and, therefore, separate yardsticks could not be applied. 6. The testimony of PW1 Deorao, who happens to be General Power of Attorney on behalf of the son of deceased claimant, purports to show that the annual agricultural income derived was n the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per acre. He further states that one Vithal had purchased land of Dr. Madhavrao Naik at rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre. He also deposed that one Nagoji Punjaji had purchased land of Maroti Waghmode at rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre. He also relied upon certified copy of the deposition of Vithal s/o Bhairu, which was recorded in L.A.R. No. 87/1979 and the deposition of Maroti Waghmode was made. He vaguely stated that the lands of village Isapur and the aquired lands are of equal fertility. His version purports to show that village Isapur is located at about one (1) mile away from village Mundhal. It is true that the sale instances referred to by PW Deorao were not ( 6 ) seriously disputed during course of the cross- examination. There was a single suggestion given to him that the Government had given adequate compensation to the claimant. In fact, the cross-examination shows lack of the proper understanding of the duty with which the learned A.G.P. should have acted. 7. True, the sale instances were not challenged by way of cross-examination, yet, it is necessary to determine whether the sale instances are comparable for the purpose of enhancement of the compensation. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the lands of the appellant were acquired in the middle of December, 1976. So, the acquisition was practically in the year 1977. The juxta position of the market rate of the acquired land with reference to the date of acquisition is more relevant for the purpose of consideration. The sale instances (Exh-20 and Exh-22) referred to by PW Deorao pertained to the year 1971 and of the small pieces of land situated at village Isapur. For, vide Exh-20 dated 12-01-1971, land to the extent of 1 hectare 20 Ares was alienated by one Dr. Madhavrao Naik for consideration of ( 7 ) Rs. 20,000/-. It appears that vide Exh-22 dated 21-07-1971, Maroti Waghmode and others alienated the land at rate of Rs. 5000/-. It is only one acre land. Both the sale instances indicated the price prevailing in the area of village Isapur. It can be gathered that the lands at village Isapur were then being sold at rate of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/- per acre. Though the market price of the lands situated at village Mundhal may not be exactly the same one, yet, after five years of those sale instances of the lands at village Isapur, the price of the lands at village Mudhol could have increased atleast to the extent of Rs. 6000/- per acre. This aspect is not considered by the Reference Court. 8. Considering the comparable sale instances and having regard to the common judgement rendered in the group of appeals decided by this Court in First Appeals No. 109/1994, 72/1994, 73/1994, 74/1994, 75/1994, 76/1994, 77/1994, 78/1994, etc. wherein compensation is increased by learned Single Judge (Deshmukh, J.) in respect of lands acquired for the same Project, I deem it proper to hold that the market value of the acquired ( 8 ) lands could be Rs. 6000/- per acre. Needless to say, the deceased claimant was entitled to receive compensation at rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre when the lands were acquired. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgement is modified. Instead of compensation at rate of Rs. 4500/- per acre, the claimant would be entitled to receive compensation at Rs. 6000/- per acre. The claimant will also be entitled to receive difference of solatium of enhanced compensation amount alongwith difference of interest amount as is permissible under the law. The claimant (appellant) will be also entitled to the benefits under section 23 and 23A of the Land Acquisition Act. The additional compensation payable to the appellant shall be worked out within period of two months and be paid to him. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/fa336-93 ( 9 )