IMPORTANT POINT
The market value of acquired land must be assessed based on its existing use and geographical situation at the time of the notification, with proper evidence required to substantiate claims for compensation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.497 of 2012 and 498 of 2012 by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad on 5/4/2014, thereby allowing the reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the present respondents.

2. We would like to say that the claimants have come with the case that they are the owners of land Survey No.154 admeasuring 1 H 47 R and Survey No.152 admeasuring 3 H 45 R respectively situated at village Shekapur, Taluka and District Osmanabad. The lands were acquired for construction of godown of then Maharashtra State Electricity Board. (for short "M.S.E.B.") The date of Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was 15/9/1993, but prior to that the possession was taken by negotiation on 25/3/1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award on 25/6/1996, which was at the rate of Rs.240.00 per R and Rs.270.00 per R, however, the claimants felt dissatisfied with the said award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, they filed reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. In the petition, the petitioners contended that they were not given opportunity to lead evidence and the award has been declared ex-parte/arbitrarily. Though the possession was taken much earlier, no amount was paid as rent or damages. The market price of the acquired lands in the year 1992-1993 was much more than the price calculated by Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had not considered the location of the acquired land and its potentiality to convert it into non agriculture. In fact, the lands are situated 2-3 kilometers from Osmanabad - Tuljapur State Highway. The adjoining lands are used for residential purposes. Some lands were meant for education and commercial activities. Under such circumstance, the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought to have granted adequate amount of compensation. The amount of compensation that has been granted is very meager and the claimants, therefore, sought enhancement at the rate of Rs.100.00 per square feet.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the reference Court submitted their written statements at Exhibit-7 and 15 respectively. It was contended that proper opportunity was given to the claimants to support their claim. However, no such concrete evidence was led. Whatever evidence was led before the Special Land Acquisition Office, he has considered it. Then prevailing market value, topography, fertility and quality of the lands have been taken into consideration. The acquired lands are the part of rural area and, therefore, whatever amount has been given is adequate. The respondents, therefore, prayed for the rejection of the reference.

5. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, issues came to be framed. Claimants have led oral as well as documentary evidence. There was no evidence on behalf of the respondents. After hearing both sides and perusing the documents on record, the learned reference Court allowed the references. It was held that the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.100.00 per square with 30% solatium and 12% additional component on enhanced amount. So also 9% interest from the date of acquisition till one year i.e. 15/9/1994 and, thereafter at the rate of 15% from 16/9/1994 to 25/6/1996, has been awarded under Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. This judgment and award is under challenge in these appeals.

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P. B. Paithankar for the appellant in both the appeals, learned AGP Mrs. P. V. Diggikar for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State in both the appeals and learned Advocate Mr. K. S. Patil holding for learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Choudhari for respondent No.3.

7. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that Sec. 6 Notification was published on 3/11/1994 and that of Sec. 11 on 25/6/1996. The possession of the