Post-notification sale transactions can be relevant for determining land compensation, conditioned on proximity and evidence of comparability to the acquired land.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’] for further enhancement in the compensation for the acquisition of the Appellant’s land, acquired for the purpose of submergence of Kolnur Pandhari Percolation Tank, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under : -

2.1. The Appellant was the owner and possessor of land Survey No. 108, admeasuring 2 Hectare 90 Ares, and Survey No. 114, admeasuring 0.40 Ares, situated at village Kolnur [Pandhari], Taluka Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer [hereinafter referred to as “SLAO”] started acquisition proceedings and issued a Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act in the Official Gazette on 15.12.1995 and published the same in the newspaper dated 13.12.1994. The Notification under Section 6 of the LA Act was issued in the Official Gazette on 08.02.1996 and published in the newspaper dated 15 & 19.03.1996. The Appellant’s agricultural land referred to above came to be acquired for the said acquisition proceedings. The SLAO issued a Notice under Section 9 of the LA Act, which was responded by the Appellant, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per Acre for his acquired land. The SLAO declared the final Award under Section 11 of the LA Act on 08.09.1998 and awarded compensation to the Appellant for his acquired land at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per Hectare.

2.2. The Appellant, being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the SLAO, filed a Reference Application under Section 18 of the LA Act, claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per Acre along with compensation for fruit-bearing trees, structures and other statutory benefits. The Reference Application was referred to the learned Civil Judge for adjudication, which came to be registered as L.A.R. No.774/2005. The Reference was contested by the State by filing a Written Statement below Exh.11 and denied the claim of the Appellant. The learned Reference Court framed the issues below Exh.12. The Appellant examined himself in support of the Claim Petition by filing an Evidence Affidavit below Exh.27. He was cross-examined on behalf of the State. The Award under Section 11 passed by the SLAO and copies of Sale Instances were brought on record. The Appellant examined the Private Valuer and Consultant Engineer below Exh.36, and he was also cross-examined on behalf of the State. The learned Reference Court passed the Judgment and Award dated 23.11.2012 partly allowing the Reference and awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.11,555/- per Acre for acquisition of the Appellant’s land, along with statutory benefits.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that though one of the Sale Instances relied upon by the Appellant before the Reference Court was of the nearby village and of the year 1997, the same was not considered, as it was two years after the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. In support of his submissions that, Post-Notification Sale Deeds can be considered, he relied on the judgment in Chindha Vithal Sonawane Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , MANU/MH/0208/1973 . The Valuer was examined, and the evidence on record shows that there was a Well in the acquired land. The LA Act was beneficial legislation. He further submitted that the Appeal be allowed and the compensation claimed in the Reference Application be granted.

4. It is submitted by the learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, that there was no evidence brought on record to show the quality of the acquired land, there was no proximity between