1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.100 OF 1996 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, through Secretary, Jalna, Shri Kantrao Mohanrao Dawkar, at Jalna. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Jalna. 2 The Collector, Jalna. 3 Shivkumar s/o Rajaram Shilewar, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o Dhangarpura, Jalna. 4 Narsing s/o Rajanna Shilewar, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o Dhangarpura, Jalna. Respondents Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, advocate for the appellant. Mr.B.V.Wagh, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 & 2.. Mr.P.F.Patni, advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.101 OF 1996 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, through Secretary, Jalna, Shri Kantrao Mohanrao Dawkar, R/o Jalna. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Jalna. 2 2 The Collector, Jalna. 3 Bhikulal s/o Deviram, age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Jalna. Respondents Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, advocate for the appellant. Mr.B.V.Wagh, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 & 2.. Mr.P.F.Patni, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. Reserved on : 07 th January, 2010. Pronounced on : 08 th January, 2010. JUDGMENT: 1 The acquiring body – Agricultural Produce Market Committee has presented both these appeals raising exception to two separate judgments and awards passed on 30.12.1991 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.52/1989 and 53/1989. 2 The lands belonging to claimants / respondents in respective Reference Applications to the extent of 3 hectares and 20 ares and 35 acres, respectively, came to be acquired by the State Government for the purposes of establishment of Market Yard at Jalna city. The notification for the purposes of acquisition of land was issued by the State on 14.07.1984 and after following procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed on 10.07.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer, who declared the award, prescribed market price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per hectare. 3 Being aggrieved by the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer, respective claimants presented applications seeking reference of the 3 matter to the Civil Court for the purposes of proper determination of market value of acquired property. The claimants led evidence before Reference Court and on consideration of evidence led by respective claimants and after considering objections raised by State Government, the Reference Court, while allowing Reference Applications partly, fixed market value of acquired property at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court also permitted respective claimants to receive benefits provided under amended Land Acquisition Act. The acquiring body, being aggrieved by enhancement granted by the Reference Court, while allowing the Reference Applications presented by respective claimants, has preferred instant First Appeals. 4 I have heard arguments advanced by Shri A.H.Kasliwal, learned Counsel for appellants and Shri P.F.Patni, learned Counsel for Respondents – original claimants. I have also perused record pertaining to respective appeals. 5 The Reference Court, while allowing applications presented by respective claimants, has taken into account evidence in the form of comparable sale instances. Claimants have relied upon sale instance produced on record at Exhibit-19 dated 25.11.1982. P.W.2 Dayalshankar Bagdi is examined for proving the sale instance. It is stated by witness that he sold agricultural land S.No.186 admeasuring 10 acres situate at Jalna, which was recorded in the name of his wife Sushilabai in favour of Guru Nanak Housing Society for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- by executing sale deed on 25.11.1982. The value of the property sold under sale instance at Exhibit-19 thus comes to Rs.27,000/- per acre. The Reference Court thought it appropriate to place reliance on the sale instance placed on record by the 4 claimants. Apart from evidence in the form of sale instance, Reference Court also recorded a finding that acquired land has N.A. potentiality and at the relevant time, land was irrigated by well water. 6 The claimant, who was similarly situated and whose land out of S.No.182/1 admeasuring 3 hectares and 20 ares was acquired by same Section 4 Notification published on 14.07.1984 for the purposes of acquisition of property for Agricultural Produce Market Committee, had presented Land Acquisition Reference No.52/1989 to the Civil Court. It is clear that the property covered by Land Acquisition Reference No.52/1989 is acquired by same Section 4 Notification as well as same is covered by award declared by Land Acquisition Officer on 10.07.1986. In the instant matters also, Notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer is the same as in the case of claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No.52/1989. While dealing with the Reference Application tendered by concerned claimant, the Reference Court, while passing award on 30.12.1991, prescribed value of acquired property at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per acre. 7 The acquiring body i.e. appellant herein raised challenge to the determination of compensation by the Reference Court in Reference Application No.52/1989 by presenting First Appeal to this Court bearing No. 398 of 1993. The appeal was taken up for consideration by this Court and decision in the appeal was rendered on 25.02.1009. This Court, after considering all relevant circumstances, recorded a finding that the valuation arrived at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per acre by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 52/1989 is proper and depicts proper market value on the date of issuance of Section 4 Notification. It is worthwhile to note that claimant in Reference 5 Application No.52/1989 also placed reliance on the sale instance dated 25.11.1982, which is also relied by claimants in the instant appeals. Thus, the basis for arriving at proper market value to be Rs.27,000/- per acre, while dealing with Reference Application No.52/1989, is the sale instance dated 25.11.1982. It is also to be noted that the agricultural property covered by Reference Application No.52/1989 as well as instant matters was having facility of irrigation by well water. Thus, this Court, while dealing with First Appeal No.398/1993, has confirmed the finding recorded by Reference Court in relation to the market value arrived at by the Reference Court while dealing with Reference Application No.52/1989. 8 In this view of the matter, in view of the judgment recorded in First Appeal No.398/1993, which is in relation to the agricultural property acquired by appellant acquiring body and covered by same Section 4 Notification as well as covered by the common award passed by Land Acquisition Officer, as in the instant matter, there is no reason to record any different opinion or take any contrary view. 9 Apart from these aspects, considering situation of the property under acquisition and considering the fact that acquired property is situate within close proximity of residential area and has non agriculture potentiality, in my opinion, rate prescribed by Reference Court at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per hectare is quite reasonable, as stated earlier. This Court has confirmed the valuation reached at Rs.27,000/- per acre by the Reference Court in respect of acquisition of the land covered by same Section 4 Notification. However, in the instant matters, rate prescribed by Reference Court in respect of acquired property is much less than what has been confirmed by this Court while dealing with First Appeal No.398/1993. 6 10 Apart from this aspect, learned Counsel for claimants, has also invited my attention to the judgment in First Appeal No.54/1995 decided on 31 st August 2009. First Appeal No.54/1995 was presented by appellant herein raising exception to the award passed on 10.06.1986 in respect of acquisition of the property covered by same Section 4 Notification as well as award, which is common to the instant appeals also. The Reference Court, while dealing with concerned Reference Application, has prescribed market value of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per hectare. The rate awarded by Reference Court in the matter under consideration in First Appeal No.54/1995 is identical to the rate prescribed in the instant appeals. The First Appeal, presented by acquiring body i.e. appellant herein raising exception to the award passed by Reference Court directing enhancement in the amount of compensation, has been dismissed summarily by this Court. 11 Considering all these relevant aspects, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the instant appeals and same are liable to be dismissed. 12 In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/fa10096