1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NOS. 1021 & 1022 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 2837, 2838 & 2839 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ........Appellant versus Vishnu Namdeo Ghule & ors.........Respondent. Ms. S.V. Mhaispurkar AGP for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 2nd September, 2010. P.C.: 1. By way of present appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge Nashik dated 9-10-2009 thereby allowing the reference filed by the respondent claimants. 2. The lands of the three claimants admeasuring 1 hector 95 Ares & PK 7 Ares, 1 hector 95 Ares & PK 7 Ares and 0.63 Ares & PK 1 Are each were acquired by the State of Maharashtra for construction of Punegaon Left Canal. The notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the said Act) was published on 23-8-1996. Sec. 6 Notification came to be issued on 9-10-1997. 2 The said Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 48,500/- per hector for group II and Rs. 64000/- for group III. Being aggrieved thereby reference came to be filed by the claimants and the same are allowed, thereby enhanceing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,45,500- per hector. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeals came to be filed. 3. Ms. Mhaispurkar, the learned AGP submits that the learned District Judge has erred in awarding such excessive compensation. She submits that the compensation enhanced is almost ten times than the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and without there being any sound reason. 4. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge Nashik. Though according to the claimants the market rate of the land in question was Rs. 8 lacs per hector, the claimants have restricted to claim of compensation at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per hector. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the sale deed dated 5-4-94 which was exhibited as Exh. 30 under which the 21Are was sold for Rs. 70,000. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the sale deed at Exh. 31 dated 7-12-1993. Under the said sale deed the area of 30 Ares land was sold for Rs. 85000/-. The learned Judge has found that even according to Exh.31 which is sale deed dated 2-12-94 the rate per hector would come to Rs. 2,80,000. It is found that there is a gap of 33 months during the period of execution of the sale deed and sec. 4 notification. The learned Judge found that if the appreciation of 10% per year is granted the market value on the 3 date of Sec. 4 notification, would come to Rs. 3,55,000/- The learned Judge has found that the land in the said sale deed was jirayat land and the land acquired is bagayat land. The learned Judge has found that in view of the settled position of law bagayat land would at least fetch 25% more price than jirayat land. 5. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the trial Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment and order. The view taken by the learned Judge is in consonance with the settled legal position. In that view of the matter no interference is warranted. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)