The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient and relevant evidence to prove the inadequacy of compensation in land acquisition cases, including the consideration of proximity and relevance of sale instances and prevailing rates.

JUDGMENT

Sandipkumar C. More, J. - The appellant i.e. the original claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 12.12.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Reference Court') in L.A.R. No. 1887/2001 (old L.A.R. No. 953/1990). Under the said Land Reference, the appellant had sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.), but it was rejected by the learned Reference Court.

2. The background facts are as under :

The respondent State acquired land admeasuring 81 R owned by the appellant out of Survey No. 117 of village Shambhu Omerga, Taluka Udgir, District Latur for Sakol Medium Project. According to the appellant, the market value of his acquired land, at the relevant time, was Rs. 25,000/-per Acre, and therefore, he was entitled for an amount of Rs. 50,500/-. The S.L.A.O. granted compensation of Rs.14,170/-, that means, around Rs. 7000/- per Acre. As such, the appellant had filed the aforesaid Land Reference, but it was dismissed by the learned Reference Court. Hence, this appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that despite the claim of the appellant of Rs. 25,000/-per Acre, the S.L.A.O. granted meager compensation and the Reference Court, despite adducing evidence by the appellant, failed to consider the same and erred in rejecting the Land Reference. He submits that the appellant had in fact produced on record the sale instances at Exhs. 15 and 42 showing that the market rate of the lands under the acquisition was Rs. 40,000/- per Acre, but those sale deeds were also disbelieved by the Reference Court by observing that the witnesses examined in respect of the same were only attesting witnesses and neither vendor nor the vendee were examined. He pointed out that the State Acquiring Body though examined Registrar, but his rates were based on ready reckoner only and not on the market price. He also submitted that two Land References, filed by other villagers for the same project or acquisition, were allowed by the learned Reference Court by granting rate to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- per Acre, but that was also not considered by the Reference Court. Thus, he prayed for enhancement of compensation by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court.

4. On the contrary, learned A.G.P. supported the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Sub-Registrar, who was examined by the State before the learned Reference Court, had brought on record the sale instances for villages Shend and Daithna showing the market price of the lands situated there from the year 1981 to 1983, and therefore the rate granted by S.L.A.O. was proper. He submits that the appellant could not produce before the learned Reference Court any sale instance of his village of the relevant time. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment alongwith record and proceeding of the original Land Reference. It appears that evidence on record is not available in the said record and proceeding. However, it can be observed from the findings given by the learned Reference Court as to what type of evidence was adduced by the rival parties.

6. It is significant to note that the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award on three grounds that the sale instances showing the market price of the lands under acquisition as Rs. 40,000/- per Acre at Exhs. 15 and 42 were not considered by the Reference Court and that the Reference Court did not believe the witnesses on the aforesaid sale instances merely because they were attesting witnesses and that the learned Reference Court also discarded the judgments in two Land Acquisition References arising out of the same acquisition filed by other villagers wherein rate of Rs. 35,000/- per Acre was granted by the Reference Court.

7. So far as the aforesaid sale deed at Exhs.15 is concer