1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and award passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Akola in L.A.C. No. 80/1998 on 02/02/2011.

2. Brief facts of the appeal, can be stated as follows:

Respondent is the owner of the plot bearing no. 39, Sheet No.27A, situated at Akola. Out of this plot, appellant has acquired the area adm. 320 sq.mtrs. for the construction of bridge on river Morna, by virtue of the Notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (For short, “Act”). It was published in the local newspaper on 26/06/1997. Thereafter Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 18/08/1997.

3. Prior to that, the Collector, Akola had sent a letter to the respondent on 11/12/1996 giving a proposal for the purchase of the said land at the rate of Rs.2,320/- per sq.mtr.. Respondent herein had sent a reply to the said letter on 17/12/1996 showing his readiness to sell the said piece of the land to the Collector at the ready reckoner price of Rs.4,640/- per sq.mtr. By his letter dt. 01/01/1997, the Collector, Akola accepted the said rate of Rs.4,640/- per sq.mtr.. In response thereto, by the letter dated 04/01/1997, Respondent further informed the Collector that after obtaining the no objection and consent letter from its Head Office, the sale would be executed. In March 1997, on demand of appellant, possession of the said land was delivered by the respondent to the appellant.

4. After the Notification under section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 26/06/1997, respondent brought all these facts to the notice of SLAO, vide his letter dated 31/07/1997. After the Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 18/08/1997, respondent again brought these same facts to the knowledge of SLAO by letter dated 09/10/1997. However, the SLAO by his award, granted paltry compensation at the rate of Rs.260/- per sq.mtr.

5. Being aggrieved thereby, respondent approached the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act, contending inter alia that when the offer was received from the Collector himself and that too accepting the rate of Rs.4,640/- per sq. mtr., the SLAO should not have reduced the said amount and granted paltry sum at the rate of Rs.260/- per sq.mtr. It was also contended that the SLAO has not taken into consideration the market value of the land in the vicinity despite the relevant material placed before him. According to respondent, the award was passed by the SLAO merely on surmises and without application of the mind, and therefore interference was warranted in the said award by enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,640/- per sq.mtr., which rate was accepted by the Collector, Akola also.

6. This petition came to be resisted by the appellant vide its written statement at Exh.16 submitting that correspondence between respondent and the Collector was a matter of record, hence needs no reply. It was submitted that the market value of the acquired land as per the prevailing market rates in the area can be Rs.4,640/- per sq.mtr. It was denied that the land was having potential for residential purpose or it was situated in residential and commercial locality of rich class of persons. It was also denied that the Collector, Akola has accepted the market value of the land at the relevant time at the rate of Rs.4,640/- per sq.mtr.. It was submitted that the SLAO has considered all the relevant factors, including the six sale instances of the land executed within the period of 5 years prior to the Notification issued under section 4 of the Act. He has also considered the potentiality and situation of the land and thereafter arrived at the proper conclusion in respect of the price of the acquired land and has awarded the just and reasonable amount of compensation. Therefore, no interference was warranted therein.

7. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court was pleased to frame the necessary issues for its consideration. In support of his case, respondent examined hi