JUDGMENT:- Heard Mr. Dound, learned A.G.P. for the Appellant and Mr. Chewale, learned counsel for Respondent.

2. The issue involved in the present First Appeal is that, whether claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land on the basis of two sale deeds produced by him on record. One more issue is about fixing the market value of Bagayat land on the basis of valuation of Jirayat land.

3. The present Appeal preferred by original Respondent - State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and award dated 30th March, 2000 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in L.A.R. No.1432 of 1998.

4. In the present case the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short "S.L.A.O.") issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 9th June, 1988 for acquiring Respondent's/original claimant's land from village Vitner, Taluka and District - Jalgaon admeasuring 4 Hectares and 87 Rs and 9 Rs Potkharaba land from Gut No.341/l for percolation tank, Vitner. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. declared award dated 8th March, 1991 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land to the tune of Rs.53,588/-. The S.L.A.O. issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15th April, 1991 to the Respondent and same was served on him on 28th April, 1991. After receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, Respondent/original claimant preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7th May, 1991 and claimed compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.l,00,000/- per Hectare. The Reference Court by Judgment and award dated 30th March, 2000 awarded compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.l,00,000/- per Hectare for Bagayat land and Rs.25,000/- per Hectare for Potkharaba land. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the Appellant preferred above mentioned Appeal.

5. It is the case of the Appellant that the lower Court wrongly relied, while determining the market value of acquired land, only on single sale instance which is not proper and just. The Appellant further contended that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the single sale instance is a sole guide-line for fixing the market value of the acquired land. The Appellant further raised objection about fixing of market value in respect of Bagayat land double than the value of Jirayat land.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent submits that the Reference Court rightly considered the sale instance at Exhibit 30 dated 4th June, 1987 in respect of 21 Rs land and 6 Rs. Potkharaba land, for determining the market value of the land involved in the present case. Learned counsel for Respondent further submitted that the Reference Court failed to award additional compensation in respect of well. Inspite of that the Respondent/original claimant has not preferred any Appeal and/or Cross Objections in the present case. He further submitted that the claimant brought on record sufficient evidence to hold that the claimant is entitled to compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.l,00,000/- per Hectare. Therefore, the Appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra to be dismissed with costs.

7. With the help of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the above mentioned matter. Learned A.G.P. for Appellant points out that the Reference Court mainly relied on Exhibit 30, a sale deed dated 4th June, 1987 in respect of 21 Rs of land plus 6 Rs of Potkharaba land for fixing the market value of the acquired land. He pointed out that, in this sale deed Exhibit 30 the transaction took place for Rs.10,000/- and therefore the rate comes to Rs.37,037/- per Hectare. The Reference Court in Para 21 wrongly held that rate in respect of sale deed comes to Rs.47,619/- per Hectare. At the time of fixing the market value, the trial Court given 10% increase in valuation of sale deed Exhibit 30 for d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document