The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Reference Court to consider all material placed before it and proved in accordance with the law, and the duty to assess reasonable compensation based on the evidence led by the parties. The judgment also emphasizes the need to consider the non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired land and the relevance of surrounding land conversions for non-agricultural use in determining fair compensation.

JUDGMENT

a. S. Chandurkar, J. - This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land acquisition act, 1894 (for short, the said act) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raises challenge to the judgment of the Reference Court dated 03/05/2017 in LaC No.127/2007. The enhancement granted in the amount of compensation in proceedings under Section 18 of the said act filed by the respondents has been challenged by the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings.

2. Gat No.60 admeasuring 2H 32R situated at mouja Nandura Tal. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal was the subject matter of acquisition since land was required by the agricultural Produce Market Committee, Babhulgaon. Notification under Section 4 of the said act was issued on 17/06/2004. The Land acquisition Officer passed his award on 16/06/2006 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- per hectare. The land owners being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation filed reference proceedings under Section 18 of the said act. The reference Court after considering the evidence led by the parties by its award dated 03/05/2017 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.603/- per square meter. This enhancement has been challenged by the agricultural Produce Market Committee.

3. Shri K. V. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court was in the absence of sufficient supporting documentary evidence on record. The appellant had placed on record various sale-deeds from Exhibits-94 to 104 with regard to transactions of sale of lands located at Nandura itself. However by relying upon the decision in State of West Bengal vs. Secretary, Union Club aIR 1972 Calcutta 225 the Reference Court discarded various sale transactions on the ground that those sale transactions had not been considered by the Land acquisition Officer while passing his award. This was contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land acquisition Officer, Poona aIR 1988 SC 1652. He submitted that if the parties had brought on record of the Reference Court relevant sale transactions, they were liable to the taken into consideration irrespective of the fact whether the same were considered or not by the Land acquisition Officer. He then submitted that the joint measurement of the acquired land was undertaken on 10/10/2003. This was clear from the award passed by the Land acquisition Officer. Thereafter on 20/10/2003 the present claimants had executed a sale-deed at Exhibit-64 by which a plot admeasuring 150 square meters at neighbouring village Kopra came to be sold for an amount of Rs.1,53,300/- This transaction having been entered into by the claimants after the joint measurement of the acquired land was done clearly indicated that the claimants after getting knowledge of the fact that their land was to be acquired, entered into a transaction of a small plot of land. That transaction therefore was not a bonafide transaction for being taken into consideration in the reference proceedings. The Reference Court erred in relying upon Exhibit-64 for enhancing the amount of compensation.

4. The learned counsel then submitted that vide Exhibit-72 the claimants had applied for converting the land in question for non-agricultural use on 20/09/2003. However before the agricultural land could be so converted, the notification under Section 4 of the said act came to be issued. Thus on the date of issuance of such notification the land remained to be agricultural land. The Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the amount of compensation by referring to sale instances of small plots from a layout located at village Kopra which had been converted for non-agricultural use. On the contrary the claimants had relied upon various sale-transactions of agricultural lands especially the sale instances dated 08/08/1999 which were at Exhibits-104 and 105 from village Nandura itself. Since these sale transactions we