The admissibility of previous judgments of the same court as evidence for determining the market value of acquired land, and the requirement to consider all attendant facts and circumstances when relying on such judgments.

JUDGMENT

Sandipkumar C. More, J. - The appellants in both these appeals have challenged the common judgment and award dtd. 24.04.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad ( hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Reference Court'), in their respective L.A.R. Nos. 288/1990 and 92/1992.

2. The appellants are the original claimants and by way of these appeals, they are claiming enhancement of the compensation granted by the learned Reference Court.

3. It appears that respective lands of applicants -claimants were acquired for the resettlement of village Bhatagali affected by Lower Terna Project, Makani Project. Under the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dtd.24.11.1987 compensation was granted to the appellants for their respective lands at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per hector. Since it was claimed by the appellants that market value of their lands was Rs. 25,000/- per acre, they claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. However, the learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per acre.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and granted meager amount of compensation. He pointed out that the appellants had relied upon the sale instance of 1982 of Mangrul village wherein the market price of the lands was around Rs. 22,000/- per acre, but still the said sale instance was ignored by the learned Reference Court. He also pointed out that this Court in another matter had in fact relied upon the same sale instance and granted rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre in First Appeal No. 326/1999.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekar and others vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3012, wherein it has been discussed as to how the previous judgment of same Court is admissible in the subsequent matters.

6. On the contrary, the learned AGP strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and pointed out that the sale instance which the appellants had relied, was in respect of land at village Mangrul which is situated at a distance of 2.5 kms. from the lands of appellants at village Bhatagali. He also pointed out that the learned Reference Court had in fact found that the land at Mangrul was sold along with well, pipeline and other facilities, but the lands of present appellants were not having such facilities. He pointed out that witness Vyankat of the appellants, who had sold the land at village Mangrul, also admitted that distance between the land at Mangrul and the lands of present appellants was of 2 kms. Further, he also admitted that there were sale transactions took place in respect of the lands in village Bhatagali. Even, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had considered the sale instances of village Bhatagali for passing the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants have failed to bring any such sale instance from village Bhatagali on record before the learned Reference Court. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. With the assistance of rival counsel, I have gone through the impugned judgments and awards and also the record and proceedings of First Appeal No. 761 of 2004.

8. Admittedly, the lands under acquisition of the appellants belonged to village Bhatagali. Though the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance the judgments of this Court in First Appeal No. 326/1999, wherein the same sale instance of village Mangrul was relied upon to grant compensation of Rs. 22,000/- per acre, but in the judgment relied upon by him in the case of Chandrasekar and Ors. V. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain tests as to how the previous judgments of the same Court is admissible in subsequent cases. It has been specifically observed by the Honou