(PER SWATANER KUMAR, C.J.)

1. All the above 80 appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment/award dated 31st March 2006 passed by 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik. As the appeals arise from the same judgment/award, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals fall in a narrow compass. The State of Maharashtra issued a Notification dated 2nd February 1994 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (hereinafter called the “Act”) intending to acquire 265.54.39 hectares of land from the revenue village Sanjegaon, taluka Igatpuri, District Nasik, for public purpose, namely, for Mukane dam out of Nadurmadneshwar project. In furtherance to the above Notification the declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 10th June 1994. After having provided opportunity to the parties to present their case before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) he had pronounced his award dated 14th December 1995 and depending upon the quality of the land the SLAO granted varied compensation to the claimants at the rate of from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,11,000/- per hectare for Jirayat lands. Bagayat lands were assessed at 1.5. times the rate of Jirayat land.

3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded the claimants preferred References under section 18 of the said Act. The parties led documentary and oral evidence in support of their claims. The claimants had claimed enhancement of compensation before the Reference Court primarily on the ground that the acquired land was situated on Mumbai Agra Highway, Taluka had been developed as a developed zone for industrial area, various industries had been established, the land was irrigated and grouping of the land into various classes by the SLAO was not justified. It was also their case that the land in question had industrial potential.

4. The State had also led evidence before the Reference Court and had submitted that the claimants were not entitled to any enhanced compensation. The Reference Court vide its judgment/award dated 31st March 2006 enhanced the compensation and granted uniform compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1.69,231/- per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.2,11,539 per hectare for Bagayat land and Rs.84,616/- for Potkharab land.

5. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, the State has come up before this Court in the above appeals praying for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and for restoration of the Collector's award. The claimants have not challenged the impugned judgment and have chosen not to file any Cross objections. At least none has been listed along with these appeals.

6. It would be appropriate to discuss the evidence which was produced by the parties before the Reference Court. The claimants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.3 lacs per hectare. As already noticed, according to the appellants, there was no justification for the Reference Court to award such higher compensation to the respondents and the compensation awarded is primarily excessive and is not based on evidence. The documentary evidence in the shape of sale instances produced by the respective parties can be usefully referred at this stage itself. Evidence produced by the State: -5- Dt. of Sale deed Exh Village Area rate per hectare -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28.2.1992 140 Sanjegaon 0.45 Ares Rs.40,000 Gat No.777 paddy/grass land 14.2.1994 141 Sanjegaon 1.50 Hectare Rs.32,666 Gat No.941 17.7.1991 142 Sanjegaon 85 Ares Rs.15,882 Gat No.971/1 Jirayat land Evidence produced by the Claimants: Sale instances: Dt of Sale deed Exh Village Area rate per hectare 4.7.1989 42 Sajegaon 13 Ares Rs.1,15,385 Gat No 810 Jirayat land 30.5.1990 124 Sanjegaon 4.8 Ares Rs 1,35,417 Gat No.516 Jirayat land 31.1.1995 129 Mukane 60 Ares Rs.2,12,500 Gat No.447A Judgments relied upon by the Claimants: L.R