The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - The Appellants have challenged the Judgment and Award dated 26.01.1987, whereby the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik has dismissed the Land Reference No.169 of 1982, filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'' ).

2. The subject matter of the reference is the land under Survey No.673 sub divisions 1 to 54 admeasuring 66 Hectares 4 Ares, at Nashik. The said land shall be hereinafter referred to as the acquired land. The acquired land was originally owned by Kamalabai Bhaskar Mule, now represented by her legal representatives, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the claimants,. The said land was acquired for a public purpose, namely construction of School, College, Hospital Building, Staff Quarters, Playground, by the Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Nashik pursuant to Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published in the Official Gazette dated 5.10.1972. By Award dated 20.7.1982, passed under Section 11 of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition officer determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per hectare. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded compensation of Rs.24,400/- towards value of the trees and Rs.500/- towards value of the well. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. The claim was premised on the basis that the Land Acquisition Officer has undervalued the acquired land, which is situated in a developed locality. The layout in respect of the acquired land was sanctioned in the year 1966 under T.P. Scheme No.II and the acquired land was suitable for construction purpose. It is the case of the claimants that the market rate of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4 notification was not less than Rs.50/- per sq. meter. The Claimants have further claimed compensation of Rs.5000/- for the structure existing in the acquired land, Rs.57,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards the value of the trees and the well and Rs.2000/- towards value of the compound wall. In addition, the Claimant also sought compensation of Rs.25,000/- as damages for diminishing profits of the land. The claimants relied upon sale transactions at Ex. 39, 40, 43, 50 and 52 and adduced oral evidence to justify their claim for enhanced compensation.

4. The Respondent No. 3 also adduced documentary and oral evidence to justify the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer.

5. By impugned judgment and Award dated 26.1.1987, the Reference Court dismissed the reference mainly on the ground that the sale transactions relied upon by the claimants are not comparable instances. The Reference Court has observed that the sale instances are in respect of plots of land in a well-developed residential locality whereas the acquired land was uneven, prone to get submerged during rains and not suitable for construction. Relying upon Agreement for Sale dated 2.5.1969 in respect of the same land and sale transaction dated 16.7.1966 the Reference Court held that the value of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable. The Reference Court therefore rejected the claim for enhanced compensation. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and Award, the Claimants have filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Act.

6. On 17.7.2008, in the course of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 offered to pay to the Claimants a lump sum amount of Rs. 55,000/- over and above the amount already paid, subject to the condition that the claimants would not claim any other statutory benefit under the Act. The learned counsel for the Claimants accepted the offer. Hence, by Judgment dated 17.7.2008 the appeal came to be disposed of by consent, with directions to the Respondent No.3 to pay to the claimant lump sum compensation of Rs. 55,000/ within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

7. The claimants