JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. V. Saressai, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. P. Sawant for the claimants.

2. Both these Appeals, question the Judgment and Award dated 24/8/2011, made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.25/2009.

3. The State, through the Executive Engineer, questions the impugned Award on the ground that no enhancement ought to have been awarded in this case and, in any case, there is no legal evidence on record to sustain the enhancement of compensation from Rs.50/- to Rs.207/- per sq. metre.

4. First Appeal No.21/2013 has been instituted by the Claimants whose land came to be acquired, urging that the enhancement to the extent of Rs.500/- per sq. metre was due and the Reference Court has erred in awarding the enhancement only to the extent of Rs.207/- per sq. metre.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is only appropriate that both these Appeals are taken up for consideration and disposed of by a common Judgment and Order.

6. Mr. V. Sardessai learned Additional Govt. Advocate submits that the Reference Court erred in relying on the sale deed dated 5/4/2006, which was not at all a comparable sale instance. He submits that the sale deed is in respect of four distinct sub-divided plots, totally admeasuring 2887 sq. metres. He submits that the property, which is the subject matter of this sale deed, was located almost 1.5 kms. away from the acquired land and the learned Reference Court has clearly misread the evidence on record and observed that the sale deed lands were hardly 700 metres away from the acquired land. He submits that the acquired land was not at all a developed land and even the expert examined by the Claimants admitted that the same was in an orchard zone. He submitted that the acquired land had no building potential and, therefore, the Reference Court erred in relying on the sale deed dated 5/4/2006.

7. Mr. Sardessai further submitted that the Claimants had relied on the sale deed dated 24/10/2007 i.e. hardly a day before the issuance of Section 4 Notification dated 25/10/2007. He submits that the expert examined by the Claimants (AW.2) admitted at paragraph 11 of his Affidavit-in-Evidence that this sale deed plot was about 200 metres away from the acquired property, though, in his report, he had by mistake stated that this property was 2 kms. away from the acquired property. Mr. Sardessai pointed out that the rate reflected in this sale deed for a small developed plot admeasuring only 475 sq. metres, was Rs.400/- per sq. metre. He, therefore, submitted that the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court is not at all proper, but, rather the same is quite excessive and warrants interference. He submits that the Land Acquisition Officer had correctly determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. metre and the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation.

8. Mr. P. Sawant, learned Counsel for the Claimants counters the submissions made by Mr. Sardessai. He submits that even though the sale deeds may have been of developed plots, the same were comparable instances and could have been relied upon by making deductions to the maximum extent of 1/3rd, as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through LRs and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474.

9. Mr. Sawant submits that the Reference Court was justified in relying on the sale deed dated 5/4/2006, but erred in making deductions not only to the extent of 40% towards development charges but a further deduction of Rs.37/- was made without assigning any proper reason. He submits that once the deductions to the extent of 40% which was also excessive, were made, there was no question of making further deductions, simply because the acquired land was allegedly rocky terrain and away from the road. He submits that based on the sale deed dated 5/4/2006, the rate could come to Rs.810/- per sq. metre in the year 2007. He submits that after making deductions to the