1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18134 OF 2008 01. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Latur. 02. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Ahmedpur, Now Chakur, District Latur. 03. The Deputy Collector, Udgir, District Latur. .. .. Applicants Versus Hakani Imamsaheb Masuldar, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chakur, Tq. Chakur, District Latur. .. .. Respondent Shri K. G. Patil, A. G. P. for the Applicants/State. Shri Vikram Kadam, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18225 OF 2008 01. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Latur. 02. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Ahmedpur, Now Chakur, District Latur. 2 03. The Deputy Collector, Udgir, District Latur. .. .. Applicants Versus Sirajoddin S/o Shafioddin Kazi, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chakur, Tq. Chakur, District Latur. .. .. Respondent Shri K. G. Patil, A. G. P. for the Applicants/State. Shri Vikram Kadam, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18221 OF 2008 01. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Latur. 02. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Ahmedpur, Now Chakur, District Latur. 03. The Deputy Collector, Udgir, District Latur. .. .. Applicants Versus Ajamsab S/o Kashimsab Railwale, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chakur, Tq. Chakur, District Latur. .. .. Respondent Shri K. G. Patil, A. G. P. for the Applicants/State. Shri Vikram Kadam, Advocate for the Respondent. 3 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. Appeals taken up for admission. Heard Shri K. G. Patil, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the appellants and Shri Vikram Kadam learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 2. Shri Patil learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the appellants/State submits that, the learned Reference Court has grossly erred in enhancing the compensation and granting it at the rate of residential plots. He further submits that, there is nothing on record to establish that, the land in question was used for non agricultural purpose, as such, the compensation could not have been granted at the rate of Rs. 14/- per square feet. 3. Shri Kadam, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the contrary submits that, learned Reference Court has given cogent and sound reasons while enhancing the compensation. He submits that, learned Reference Court has taken into consideration that, for adjoining land for which the notification was issued in the year 1987, the compensation was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square feet, which was enhanced by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square feet. He further submits that, the lands were situated on Latur-Nanded Highway, 4 surrounded by market place, school, etc. He further submits that, therefore, the findings given by the learned Reference Court requires no interference. 4. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Reference Court. From the perusal of paragraph 10, it would be clear that, the learned Trial Court has found that, certain sale deeds were executed in the year 1991 for an area at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet and Rs. 13.33 per square feet. These sale deeds were prior to the notification under Section 4 dated 28.05.1992. It has further been found by the learned Reference Court that, after the notification was issued under Section 4, the sale instances have taken place at the rate of Rs. 29.16 per square feet, Rs. 47.50 per square feet. It has further been found by the learned Reference Court in paragraph 13 that, adjoining land to the land in question was acquired for the construction of Government Rest House, that land is near to school, college, market yard, bus stand, bank, etc. It has further been found that, the land is situated at a fastly developing area near the Latur-Nanded highway. The learned Reference Court has further found that, the land which was acquired vide notification dated 31.03.1987 for the purpose of Government Rest House, the compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square feet and it was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square feet. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Reference Court has found that, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 14/- per square feet would be just and proper. Not only this, but the learned Reference Court has also 5 deducted 25% of area, while determining the compensation as the land required to be kept for development purpose open area, etc. 5. Taking into consideration the reasons given by the learned Reference Court and particularly that, the land was acquired for extension of Gavthan, it could not be said that findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are erroneous, unjust and contrary to the evidence. We find that, findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are based upon the material on record and which are in consonance with the evidence. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the appeals, same are therefore, rejected. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/August 09