The highest sale instance must be considered for compensation valuation, and deductions for development charges must reflect the land's actual condition.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. These are the Appeals under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’] against the Judgment and Decree/Award dated 08/04/2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’] in group of references arising out of the Land Acquisition Proceedings under the said Act initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer [hereinafter referred to as ‘the LAO’] for the purpose of Police Training School at Babhalgaon, Taluka and District Latur vide No.2006/LNQ/CR-1.

2. The Claimants preferred the Appeal Nos.742/2019, 743/2019, 744/2019 and 745/2019 and the State also preferred the Appeal Nos.1668/2014, 1669/2014, 1670/2014 and 1671/2014 against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court. Since all the Appeals arise out of the one and the same Judgment and Decree/Award of the Reference Court, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. The factual aspects of the subject matter, as seen from the papers on record, are as follows :

(a) For the aforementioned purpose, the LAO issued the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act on 17/05/2006. Thereafter, he issued the notification under Section 6 of the said Act on 12/09/2006. The following lands of the Claimants, who were the owners and possessors of the lands, were the subject matter of acquisition for the aforesaid purpose and following rates were offered by the LAO :-

(b) The LAO passed the Award on 06/08/2007 in the said acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 12 of the said Act. Being not satisfed with the compensation awarded by the LAO, the Claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. ft. without any deduction. The Claimants led their evidence before the Reference Court. The learned Reference Court, vide common Judgment and Decree/Award dated 08/04/2013, partly allowed the references and enhanced the compensation to Rs.220/- per sq. ft. with statutory benefit of 30% solatium under Section 23 (2) of the said Act, 12% third component from the date of notification under Section 4 of the said Act till the date of Award, along with interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and the interest @ 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till realization of the entire amount.

4. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande for the Claimants and the learned AGP for the State.

5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants that the Claimants relied on four (4) sale instances in support of their claim for enhanced compensation. However, the learned Reference Court ignored the highest sale instance without assigning any reason. He submits that it is settled position under the law that the highest sale instance is required to be considered. He submitted that the sale deeds, which were relied upon by the Claimants, were of three (3) years and seven (7) months prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the said Ac