1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 483 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed ... Appellant. Versus 1] Dharmaraj S/o Mukundappa Rajmane, Age 47 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Moha, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 2) Shivshankar S/o Mukundappa Rajmane, Age 38 years, Occu. & R/o as above. 3) Shivraj S/o Mukundappa Rajmane, Age 32 years, Occu. & R/o as above ... Respondents. -------- Shri. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for appellant. -------- CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 5th DECEMBER, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) Challenge in this appeal is to 2 Judgment rendered by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Beed in Land Reference Case No. 814 of 1987, whereby reference application filed by the respondents was allowed and enhancement of compensation was awarded to them. 2) The respondents are owners of lands Survey Nos.110 & 111, situated at Moha, under Majalgaon Tahsil. A part of their lands was acquired by the appellant (State) for construction of percolation tank. It is undisputed that necessary Notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 01-04-1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) rendered Award on 21-05-1986. He considered relevant material and came to the conclusion that land Survey No. 110 was un-irrigated and compensation payable to the respondents was at the rate of Rs. 60/- per Are. He further held that land Survey No. 111 was irrigated land due to presence of community well within the same, and therefore, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per Are for 3 the acquired land. 3) The respondents were served with notice Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They submitted reference application They asserted that market value of the acquired land was Rs. 20,000/- per acre. They submitted that very marginal compensation was awarded to them which was inadequate and unreasonable. Consequently, they sought enhancement of the compensation amount. 4) The appellant resisted the reference application on the ground that the Award rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was proper having regard to the potentiality of acquired lands and comparable sale instances. The appellant asserted that claimants (respondents) did not adduce any evidence to show that market value of the acquired land was Rs. 20,000/- per Acre. The appellant submitted that highly excessive demand for enhancement of compensation was made by the respondents (Original applicants). Hence, the appellant sought 4 dismissal of the reference application. 5) Parties went to trial over issues settled by the reference Court. The respondents adduced certain oral and documentary evidence in support of the claim petition. The learned Additional District Judge, Beed held that the market value of the lands could be much more in view of potentiality of the development, due to irrigation project. The reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per Are for acquired land out of Survey No. 110, and, at the rate of Rs. 375/- per Are for acquired land out of Survey No.111. The enhanced compensation was therefore, directed to be paid along with further interest and additional component. 6) Heard, learned AGP, Shri S.D. Kaldate. Though served respondents remained absent. 7) Before I proceed to examine the evidence of the parties, it may be noticed that the respondents did not produce any document to show that the lands in the proximity of the acquired lands could have fetched market value, as claimed 5 by him. The reference Court referred to the evidence regarding three sale instances sought to be relied upon by the respondents. The reference Court held that though sale instances were of no avail because lands were not situated within the limits of Village Moha. The sale-deeds, therefore, discarded. 8) It is pertinent to note that there was no separate well available to irrigate land Survey No. 111. It was only alleged that there is community well situated in the said land, and therefore, fertility of the land was much more. The reference Court did not examine whether water of the community well could be sufficiently used for irrigation of survey No. 111. In fact, it was gathered that the respondents had only small share in the well. The reference Court should have considered whether the well has sufficient water storage. 9) The reference Court only considered development, which was likely to occur as a 6 result of construction of the percolation tank. It has been observed that : “Considering the possibility of improvements of its potentiality and estimate judged by an objective standard, taking into consideration the afore said facts and circumstances, can be made and value of the land acquired out of Survey No. 111 can be reasonable at Rs. 15,000/- per Are.” From the observations, it is explicit that the reference Court laboured under wrong impression that the market value could be determined on basis of subsequent development which could have occurred, if the lands were can be outside the area of acquisition. This approach of the reference Court is improper. The market value of the acquired property is required to be determined having regard to juxtapositon as on date of the notification U/Sec. 4. What would have happened in future could not be the criteria 7 for determination of the market value. That was not certain, and therefore, could not be looked objectivity while making assessment of the market value. In spite of this, the reference Court says that the relevant aspects were considered with objectivity. In fact, such decision is rendered not on the basis of available material but on account of subjective decision. For, the learned Additional District Judge considered “ Probable potential value due to developments which were likely to occur”. 10) There is no basis for the enhancement of the market value by the reference Court. There were no sale instances to show that the acquired lands could have fetched market value at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per Acre at the relevant time. The three sale instances referred to by the respondents were discarded by the reference Court. The reference Court observed that “ on perusal of these sale instances I do not find these are relevant in this proceeding, to determine the market rate of the land under 8 acquisition. Therefore,I am rejecting submission of the petitioners that these sale instances can be relied upon for fixing market value for land acquired.” 11) It is very clear from the impugned judgment that the learned Additional District Judge, estimated market value of the acquired land on basis of conjunctures and surmises. The enhancement of compensation is, therefore, unsustainable. 12) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Award rendered by the Reference Court is set aside. The reference application be deemed as dismissed. No order as to costs. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) SDM/FA483.93. 9