1 FA 99.92 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 99 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Ramchandra Sadashiv Shiralkar. ... Respondent ­­­­­ Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned AGP appearing for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondent. 2 The challenge in the appeal is to the judgment and award dated 28 th July, 1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sangli. The judgment and award was made in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) made at the instance of the Respondent in respect of the 2 FA 99.92 land admeasuring 28­R bearing R.S.No.369 situated at Sangli. Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 20 th October, 1983. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 25 th March, 1985 by which total compensation of Rs.13,650/­ was awarded. As the said award was not accepted, at the instance of the Respondent, reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made. By the impugned award, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 11,000/­ per Are and statutory benefits have been granted. 3 The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Reference Court has discarded the only sale instance relied upon by the Respondent and thereafter, proceeded to rely upon the sale instances to which reference was made in an award under Section 11 of the said Act. He submitted that on the basis of the said sale instances referred to in the said award, which were not before the Court, the market value has been enhanced. He submitted that the impugned award is completely illegal. None appears for the Respondent. 3 FA 99.92 4 I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the rozmana shows that the Respondent did not lead any evidence and he placed reliance on the evidence of two witnesses examined in Land Acquisition Reference No.10 of 1985. He relied upon the two sale instances, which have been produced in the said companion Land Acquisition Reference No.10 of 1985. For the reasons recored, both the sale instances have been discarded by the learned trial Judge. 5 The grounds on which the market value has been enhanced have been set out in paragraph No.9 of the judgment. In paragraph No.9, the learned trial Judge has made a reference to the sale instances, which were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The said sale instances were not produced and proved before the Reference Court. The claimant in a reference under Section 18 of the said Act is in the position of a plaintiff and the burden is on him to prove that the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. If the claimant wants to rely upon sale instances to which reference is made in an award under Section 11 of the said Act, the claimant is under an 4 FA 99.92 obligation to produce and prove the said sale instances. The reason is that the sale instances must be proved to be in respect of comparable lands. In the present case, the claimant has failed to do so. An award under Section 11 of the said Act is not a judgment and order. It is merely an offer. Moreover, perusal of paragraph No.9 of the judgment indicates that the learned Reference Court was under an impression that he was sitting over in appeal against the award under Section 11 of the said Act. The said approach was completely erroneous as award under Section 11 is merely an offer of the State Government. 6 Hence, no case was made out for grant of enhancement in market value and the impugned award being illegal will have to be set aside. 7 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned judgment and award dated 28 th July, 1987 is quashed and set aside and the Land Acquisition Reference No.8 of 1985 stands dismissed with no order as to costs ; 5 FA 99.92 ii. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs ; iii. Civil Application No.3016 of 1992 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]