ash 1 fa-893.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.893 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra. -- Appellant. Vs 1. Amrut Piraji Chavanke, 2. Daulat Piraji Chavanke .. Respondents -- Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard the learned AGP appearing for the Appellant-State. 2. The Appellant–State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 28th June, 1991 passed by the Reference Court in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The land subject matter of acquisition is Gat No.165 admeasuring 41 Ares situated at Village Kirtangali, Taluka-Sinnar, District Nashik. The land was notified under Section 4(1) of the said Act on 18th February, 1972 for the public purpose of Kadva Right Bank Canal Project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.3,900/- per ash 2 fa-893.92 Hectare by treating the acquired land as Jirayat class. The award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not accepted and at the instance of the Respondents, a Reference was made under Section 18 of the said Act in which the market value was claimed at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per Hectare. By the impugned judgment and award, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per Hectare. In addition, the statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the said Act have been granted. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant in support of the Appeal has taken the Court through the record. He submitted that the market value of Rs.20,000/- has been fixed without any basis. The Reference Court relied upon only one sale instance at Exhibit- 22 which cannot be said to be the sale instance of a comparable land. He submitted that even other sale instance on which the reliance was placed was not proved to be in respect of a comparable land. He submitted that as the Respondents/Claimants did not discharge the burden, the Reference Court ought not to have granted enhancement. None appears for the Respondents. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Reference Court has relied upon the sale deed dated 11th March, 1981 in respect of the land admeasuring 37 Ares bearing Gat No.498 situated in the ash 3 fa-893.92 same village. The purchaser Shankar Bhau Chanvanke under the said Sale Deed has been examined as a witness. He produced the original sale deed and has proved the same. He stated that he was knowing the acquired lands which were situated at a distance of about one furlong from the land purchased by him. He stated that the acquired lands were Bagayat lands. In the cross-examination, He admitted that he has purchased the share in the well and not in the motor. He stated that when he obtained the possession of the land, there was only bajra crop standing in the said land. About the comparability of the said Sale deed and the acquired land, there is no cross-examination made by the Appellant. 5. As stated earlier, the land subject matter of the Sale Deed is situated in the same Village. The area of the acquired land is 41 Ares and the area subject matter of the Sale Deed was 39 Ares. The Sale Deed shows that the land was not Bagayat but Jirayat land. The market value reflected from the said Sale Deed is around Rs.24,000/- per Hectare, 6. The relevant date in the present case is about 11months prior to the said Sale Deed. The market value fixed under the impugned award is Rs.20,000/- per Hectare which is less than the rate reflected from the said sale deed in respect of Jirayat land. ash 4 fa-893.92 7. The Sale Deed land can be said to be certainly comparable to the acquired land. 8. Hence, it is not possible to find fault with the market value fixed by Reference Court . Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )