JUDGMENT :

M.G. Giratkar, J.

This is an appeal filed by acquiring body VIDC against the impugned judgment of reference Court in LAC No. 660 of 2007, dated 28th September, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha.

2. Land of respondent No.1 bearing Survey No. 101 of village mouza Borgaon Hatla area 12.92 HR was acquired for Lower Wardha Project by the appellant/VIDC. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 15th January, 1999. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed award on 25th February, 2003 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.37,500/- per hectare. Being aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.1 filed LAC No. 660 of 2007. Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.1,12,42,000/- for acquired land of 32.12 acres.

3. Heard Shri P.B. Patil with Ms. Amruta Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri J.P. Deshmukh with Shri A.R. Ingole, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out the evidence and sale deeds relied upon by respondent No.1 before the reference Court. He has submitted that the sale deed dated 03rd January, 2008 is taken into consideration and wrongly granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out the decision in the case of Valliyammal and another .v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another, (2011) 8 SCC 91 and submitted that deduction is not taken into consideration. He has also submitted that the post notification sale deed cannot be taken into consideration while determining the compensation. In support of his submission, he has pointed out the decision in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others .v. State of Haryana and another, (2018) 2 SCC 474. At last, learned Counsel has submitted that two sale deeds were filed on record by respondent No.1. Sale Deed dated 07th March, 1998 was not taken into consideration by the reference Court and wrongly relied on the sale deed of the year 2008. Hence, in view of the judgment in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others .v. State of Haryana and another (cited supra), the impugned judgment in the instant appeal is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the land of respondent No.1 adjacent to the railway line, is acquired. The village Bhaipur is adjacent village and, therefore, post notification sale is rightly considered by the reference Court. In support of his submission, he has pointed the following judgments. Sharadamma .v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2007 LAC 301 (SC); Takhat Singh .v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2011 LAC 33 (Raj);

Satish and others .v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 14 SCC 758;

Arawali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. .v. Joginder Singh Tokash and others, (2018) 1 AllMR 929 (SC));

The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. .v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2008) 6 AllMR 491;

Land Acquisition Officer, PWD Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa and another .v. Kalidas Atmaram Savaikar, (2018) 3 MhLJ 769; and Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar .v. State of Maharashtra,2009 AllSCR 1335.

6. The land of village Borgaon Hatla which belongs to respondent No.1 is acquired vide notification dated 15th January, 1999. Nothing is placed on record in respect of sale transaction of the village Borgaon Hatla. Respondent No.1 himself examined before the reference Court. He has not examined any other witnesses. He has relied on two sale transactions (Exhs.21 and 22). He has stated in his evidence that his land is valued at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre in view of the sale deed of village Bhaipur (Exh.22).

7. Shri Deshmukh, learn