( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 208 OF 1995 1. Ajyodyabai w/o Vaijanath Totla, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. 2. Nandkishor s/o Bansilal Holani, R/o as above. APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Penganga Project, Parbhani. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Pawar, advocate holding for Mr. G.N. Patil, advocate for the appellants. Mrs. V.A. Mane, A.G.P. for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [DATE : 22nd March, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. On 1st April, 1997, the appeal is admitted. 2. Land Survey No. 122 (Gat No. 234), admeasuring ( 2 ) 67 Ares, situate at village Dahikhed in Sonpeth was acquired for school and playground. The land was abutting main road. The claimant canvassed that the property acquired had non-agricultural potentiality which is a fact established from the fact that it was acquired for the purpose of a primary school and playground. The village Dahikhed and Sonpeth are adjoining to each other which forms a single township. The suit land situate in the heart of Sonpeth as on the eastern side of suit land, Sonpeth-Vita road proceeds whereas towards southern side, there is Sonpeth-Parli road. He has canvassed, in the adjoining properties, several houses are constructed and, therefore, the non- agricultural potentiality has been multiplied. The petitioner-claimant asserts, in the year 1985, the property in vicinity was sold in pieces which earned around Rs. 10/- to Rs. 11/- per sq. feet to the respective owners and had the land in question not acquired, the claimant would have sold same in the form of different plots to earn a good yield. The claimant asserts, considering 67 Ares of the land, deducting 1/3rd area for development from it, 44,000 sq.feet of the land ( 3 ) was freely available for non-agricultural purposes and according to him, the computation should have been at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. feet. 3. The learned A.G.P. submits that the learned Reference Court did not consider the sale instance as the owners or the sellers of the respective properties were not examined. However, in terms of section 51A which ordain a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, including the copy given under section 57 of that Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Before the learned Reference Court, when the witnesses were brought particularly PW1 Jagdish who had acquaintance in relation to the suit property, he has stated that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) are the owners of land Survey No. 122, admeasuring 7 Acres 8 gunthas. It is brought on record that in the vicinity, land admeasuring 2 and 1/2 gunthas was sold by Shivaji and Neelaji to one Subhash Nitrudkar in 1986. The sale-deed is at Exh-32. The sale-deed in respect of another piece of land owned by one Tarabai ( 4 ) adjacent to the suit land, was produced at Exh-38. This was even produced before the L.A.O. It was informed, the left-over portion of land Survey No. 122 was used for the purpose of plotting. 4. The learned Reference Court, as stated earlier, did not agree to the sale instances produced at Exh-40, Exh-44, Exh-45 Exh-26 and Exh-30 and carried his own assessment, and found that at the most, the petitioners/appellants could be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. 5. The learned Reference Court did not dispute that the land acquired is facing main road from two sides. Since it was acquired for the very purpose of a primary school and playground, it had the non- agricultural potentiality. He also did not virtually dispute about sale-deed (Exh-30) of witness Subhash Nitrudkar wherein said Subhash has purchased 3/4 gunthas of land in the form of plot to the extent of 50 feet x 15 feet area from the nearby vicinity in the same ( 5 ) village Dahikhed for Rs. 17,000/-. These sale instances are apparently prior to pre-notification date, for which there is no confrontation or any hassle between the parties. The fact remains, inspite of there being so much evidence, the learned Reference Court has relied simply on hyper-technical aspect. 6. In the matter of land acquisition, little guesswork is bound to creep in. The non-agricultural potentiality of the land at hand is indeed established. However, at the same time, one should not be oblivious that the left-over portion of the claimant due to formation of the school, is in a bulk area as the entire land is 7 acres 8 gunthas. The claimant has certainly been benefited by such acquisition, to fetch magnified price. 7. The learned Judge should have considered evidence of said Subhash. Considering the non- agricultural potentiality of the property though the claimant/appellant staked claim at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. feet, however, by any calculation, the learned ( 6 ) Judge should have modified it at the rate of at least Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) per acre. This is particularly in the light of the sale instances referred hereinbefore. Hence, the order. The appeal is partly allowed, with costs. The award of the learned Judge fixing it at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre is modified to Rs. 40,000/- per Acre. Rest statutory entitlements shall remain unaltered. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE NPJ/fa208-95