JUDGMENT :

P.R. BORA, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Award passed in LAR No. 26 of 2012 decided by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kopargaon on 10.03.2016 by filing the present appeal.

2. The aforesaid reference application was filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation as was offered to him by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'SLAO'). The land Survey No. 3/27 bearing City Survey No. 908 admeasuring 258.18 Sq. Mtrs situated at village Shirdi, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar was owned by the claimant. The respondents have acquired the said land for Pimpalwadi to Nimgaon shiv road, which was the part of and was shown in the Development Plan prepared by Shirdi Municipal Council. The notification in that regard under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was published in the Official Gazette on 14.01.2008, whereas the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') came to be passed on 04.11.2010.

3. In the Award so passed, though the market value of the land acquired of the claimant was fixed at Rs. 6,417/- per sq. meter, the SLAO offered nominal compensation of Rs. 1/- to the claimant. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so offered, the claimant made Reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation and the same was adjudicated by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kopargaon. The said Court is hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court'.

4. In the reference application, the claimant had claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. meter. The claim so made by the claimant was opposed by the respondents. In order to support his case, the claimant himself deposed before the Reference Court. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Reference Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, has rejected the reference application. Aggrieved by, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

5. Shri A.K. Gawali, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant submitted that, the Reference Court has manifestly erred in holding that, since the acquired land was shown reserved for the purpose of Development Plan Road in the lay out got sanctioned by the appellant - claimant, no more compensation than the nominal compensation of Rs. 1/- was payable to the appellant - claimant. Relying on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhimashankar Sidramappa Chippa, 2009 (5) Mh. L.J. 76, the learned Counsel submitted that, the land which is shown to be reserved for the purpose of DP road in a lay out sanctioned by the Municipal Council cannot be acquired by the Municipal Council free of cost merely because a condition is imposed in the order of sanctioning lay out that a nominal compensation of Rs. 1/- only would be payable for such acquisition.

6. The learned Counsel also referred to and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1995 SC 430 and more particularly invited my attention to para-6 of the said Judgment. The learned Counsel submitted that, in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhimashankar Sidramappa Chippa (cited supra) the Division Bench of this Court has reiterated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said Judgment. The learned Counsel also referred to an another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel Since deceased through his L.Rs. Smt. Jagrati Vrajlal Patel and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 (3) Mh. L.J. 215, wherein it is held that, no law exists under which ownership in open space under the lay out could be vested or transferred to the Municipal Council free of cost. The