High Court
Facts
1 FA26.2005+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD202 FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2005STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERVERSUSVIRAPPA BHIMRAO UMATE...WITHX-OBJECTION NO. 54 OF 2024 IN FA/28/2005STATE OF MAHARASHTRAVERSUSJAMBUWANTRAO GIRJAPPA SONKAWADE… WITHX-OBJECTION NO. 22 OF 2024 IN FA/26/2005THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAVERSUSVIRAPPA BHIMRAO UMATE… WITHX-OBJECTION NO. 23 OF 2024 IN FA/27/2005THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAVERSUSJAMBUWANTRAO GIRAJAPPA SONKAWADE… WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2005 2 FA26.2005+STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERVERSUSJAMBUWANTRAO GIRJAPPA SONKAWADE… WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3395 OF 2004 IN FA/27/2005STATE OF MAHARSHTRAVERSUSJAMBUWANTRAO GIRJAPPA SONKAWADE… WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3397 OF 2004 IN FA/26/2005STATE OF MAHARASHTRAVERSUSVIRAPPA BHIMRAO UMATE… WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2005STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERVERSUSJAMBUWANTRAO GIRJAPPA SONKAWADE… WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3393 OF 2004 IN FA/28/2005STATE OF MAHARASHTRAVERSUSJAMBUWANTRAO GIRJAPPA SONKAWADE… 3 FA26.2005+ WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3391 OF 2004 IN FA/28/2005STATE OF MAHARASHTRAVERSUSJAMBUWANTRAO GIRAJAPPA SONKAWADE… WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7397 OF 2004 IN FA/27/2005JAMBUWANTRAO GIRJAPPA SONKAWADEVERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…AGP for Appellants / State : Mr. S. S. DandeAdvocate for Respondents / Claimants / Cross-Objectioners : Mr. A. D. Sonkawade a/w. Mr. S. J. Sonkawade i/b. Mr. V. D. Gunale…CORAM:ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE:03rd OCTOBER, 2024PER COURT:1.By the present appeals the State is challenging theaward passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No.2602/2001being First Appeal No.27/2005, LAR No. 3243/2001 in First AppealNo.26/2005 and LAR No. 2603/2001 in First Appeal No.28/2005.Cross objections are also filed in all the first appeals by theclaimants. 4 FA26.2005+2.Facts of the cases are summarized, as under:-3.Notification under Section 4 was issued on 17.05.1992for acquisition of land for the purpose of extension of Gaothan ofvillage Walandi, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. The lands adm 65 Are and 97Are from Survey No. 89 and 1 Hector 37 Are from Survey No. 118,situated at village Walandi Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur were acquired. Outof the acquired lands 65 Are land was owned by JambuwantraoGirjappa Sonkawade, 97 Are land was owned by Gramin ShikshanPrasarak Mandal, Walandi and land of 1 Hector 37 Are was ownedby Irrappa Bhimrao Umate.4.Learned SLAO granted compensation for 1-H 37-R landin Survey No.118 to Irrappa at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per hector,whereas SLAO granted 35.50 paise per square meter (Rs.3.50 paiseper sq. ft.) for 65-R & 97-R in survey No. 89. The claimants filedreference against the award of the SLAO. 5.Evidence in terms of sale deeds was placed before theReference Court at Exh.18, 19, 20, 49, 50 & 51 as under:Sr. No.Exh.Date of SaleDeedRate per sq. fts in sale deed 10% per yearRate in the year 1992per sq. fts. 11829-03-1984Rs.21.97psFor 8 yearsRs.39.50ps 5 FA26.2005+21929-03-1984Rs.21.97psFor 8 yearsRs.39.50ps32001-08-1994Rs.50.00For 2 yearsRs.60.0044916-02-1999Rs.151.00For 7 years(decrease)Rs.46.0055025-11-1999Rs.75.00For 7 yearsRs.23.0065115-12-1999Rs.57.00For 7 yearsRs.18.006.Apart from the above sale deeds, award passed by theReference Court in LAR No. 864/1996 was relied upon, wherein thelearned Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate ofRs.12/- per Sq. ft. The claimants claimed at the rate of Rs.50/- persq. ft. as compensation before the learned Reference Court.7.The Reference Court considered the evidence withrespect to survey No.118, which is surrounded by school to North,Public Health Center and Water Supply Tank towards East, oldgaothan to South and Community Hall and Junior College to West.The village Walandi is a Bazar Centre for 40-50 villages. There areoffices like MSEB 33KV Sub-Station, Irrigation Sub-DivisionalProject of Sakol Medium Project, Public Health Centre, PWD GuestHouse. The village is the fast growing village. The learned ReferenceCourt observed that survey No.118 is divided by State Highway. Ithas two frontage roads.
Legal Reasoning
11 FA26.2005+that a deduction of 40 percent as developmental costfrom the market value determined by the ReferenceCourt would be just and proper for ascertaining thecompensation payable to the landowner.(v) In Kasturi and Ors. v. State of HaryanaMANU/SC/1385/2002MANU/SC/1385/2002 : (2003) 1SCC 354, this Court opined, that in respect ofagricultural land or undeveloped land which haspotential value for housing or commercial purposes,normally 1/3rd amount of compensation should bededucted, depending upon the location, extent ofexpenditure involved for development, the area requiredfor roads and other civic amenities etc. It was alsoopined, that appropriate deductions could be made formaking plots for residential and commercial purposes. Itwas sought to be explained, that the acquired land maybe plain or uneven, the soil of the acquired land may besoft and hard, the acquired land may have a hillock ormay be low lying or may have deep ditches. Accordingly,it was pointed out, that expenses involved fordevelopment would vary keeping in mind the facts andcircumstances of each case. In Kasturi's case (supra) itwas held, that normal deductions on account ofdevelopment would be 1/3rd of the amount ofcompensation. It was however clarified that in somecases the deduction could be more than 1/3rd and inother cases even less than 1/3rd.(vi) Following the decision rendered by this Court inBrigadier Sahib Singh Kalha's case, this Court in LandAcquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, NizamabadDistrict, A.P. v. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors.MANU/SC/1228/2003MANU/SC/1228/2003 : (2003)12 SCC 334, applied a deduction of 53 percent, todetermine the compensation payable to the landowners.(vii) In V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. v. LandAcquisition Officer and Mandal R. OfficerMANU/SC/1066/2003MANU/SC/1066/2003 : (2003)12 SCC 642, this Court examined the propriety of 12 FA26.2005+compensation determined as payable to the land loserby the High Court. The Reference Court had determinedthe market value of developed land at Rs. 78 per sq.yard. The Reference Court then applied a deduction of1/4th to arrive at Rs. 58 per sq. yard as thecompensation payable. The High Court howeverconcluded, that compensation at Rs. 30 per sq. yardwould be appropriate (this would mean a deduction ofapproximately 37 percent, as against market value ofdeveloped land at Rs. 78 per sq. yard). This Courthaving made a reference to Kasturi's case (supra) didnot find any infirmity in the order passed by the HighCourt. In other words, deduction of 37 percent wasapproved by this Court.(viii) In para 21 of the judgment in Viluben JhalejarContractor (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of GujaratMANU/SC/0286/2005MANU/SC/0286/2005 : (2005) 4SCC 789, it was held that for development, i.e.,preparation of lay out plans, carving out roads, leavingopen spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting forpurchasers, and on account of other hazards of anentrepreneur, the deduction could range between 20percent and 50 percent of the total market price of theexemplar land.(ix) In Atma Singh (Dead) through L.Rs and Ors. v. Stateof Haryana and Anr. MANU / SC / 8181 / 2007MANU/SC/8181/2007 : (2008) 2 SCC 568, this Courtafter making a reference to a number of decisions on thepoint, and after taking into consideration the fact thatthe exemplar sale transaction was of a smaller piece ofland concluded, that deductions of 20 percent onwards,depending on the facts and circumstances of each casecould be made.(x) In Lal Chand v. Union of India and Anr.MANU/SC/1541/2009MANU/SC/1541/2009 : (2009)15 SCC 769, it was held that to determine the marketvalue of a large tract of undeveloped agricultural land(with potential for development), with reference to sale 13 FA26.2005+price of small developed plot(s), deductions varyingbetween 20 percent to 75 percent of the price of suchdeveloped plot(s) could be made.(xi) In Subh Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.MANU/SC/1790/2009MANU/SC/1790/2009 : (2010) 1SCC 444, this Court opined, that in cases where thevaluation of a large area of agricultural or undevelopedland was to be determined on the basis of the sale priceof a small developed plot, standard deductions ought tobe 1/3rd towards infrastructure space (areas to be leftout for roads etc.) and 1/3rd towards infrastructuraldevelopmental costs (costs for raising infrastructure),i.e., in all 2/3rd (or 67 percent).(xii) In Andhra Pradesh Housing Board v. K. ManoharReddy and Ors. MANU / SC /0785 /2010MANU/SC/0785/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 707, havingexamined the existing case law on the point it wasconcluded, that deductions on account of developmentcould vary between 20 percent to 75 percent. In thepeculiar facts of the case a deduction of 1/3rd towardsdevelopment charges was made from the awardedamount to determine the compensation payable.(xiii) In Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. v. M.K.Rafiq Sahib MANU /SC /0747 /2011MANU/SC/0747/2011 : (2011) 7 SCC 714, this Courtafter having concluded, that the land which was subjectmatter of acquisition was not agricultural land for allpractical purposes and no agricultural activities could becarried out on it, concluded that in order to determinefair compensation, based on a sale transaction of a smallpiece of developed land (though the acquired land was alarge chunk), the deduction made by the High Court at50 percent, ought to be increased to 60 percent.16. Based on the precedents on the issue referred toabove it is seen, that as the legal proposition on thepoint crystallized, this Court divided the quantum ofdeductions (to be made from the market value 14 FA26.2005+determined on the basis of the developed exemplartransaction) on account of development into twocomponents.Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, forproviding indispensable amenities like formation ofroads and adjoining pavements, laying of sewers andrain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks andwater lines, water and effluent treatment plants,electricity sub-stations, electricity lines and street lights,telecommunication towers etc. Besides the aforesaid,land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens andplaygrounds. Additionally, development includesprovision of civic amenities like educational institutions,dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumpsetc. This "first component", may conveniently bereferred to as deductions for keeping aside area/spacefor providing developmental infrastructure.Secondly, deduction has to be made for theexpenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred inproviding and raising the infrastructure and civicamenities referred to above, including costs for levellinghillocks and filling up low lying lands and ditches,plotting out smaller plots and the like. This "secondcomponent" may conveniently be referred to asdeductions for developmental expenditure/expense.17. It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions, outof the market value of an exemplar land, for each of thetwo components referred to above. This would be thefirst step towards balancing the differential factors. Thiswould pave the way for determining the market value ofthe undeveloped acquired land on the basis of marketvalue of the developed exemplar land. As far back as in1982, this Court in Brigadier Sahib Singh Kalha's case(supra) held, that the permissible deduction could beupto 53 percent. This deduction was divided by theCourt into two components. For the "first component"referred to in the foregoing paragraph, it was held that adeduction of 20 percent should be made. For the 15 FA26.2005+"second component", it was held that the deductioncould range between 20 to 33 percent. It is thereforeapparent, that a deduction of upto 53 percent was thenorm laid down by the Court as far back as in 1982. Theaforesaid norm remained unchanged for a long durationof time, even though, keeping in mind the peculiar factsand circumstances emerging from case to case, differentdeductions were applied by this Court to balance thedifferential factors between the exemplar land and theacquired land. Recently however, this Court hasapproved a higher component of deduction. In 2009 inLal Chand's case (supra) and in 2010 in Andhra PradeshHousing Board's case (supra), it has been held, thatwhile applying the sale consideration of a small piece ofdeveloped land, to determine the market value of alarge tract of undeveloped acquired land, deductionsbetween 20 to 75 percent could be made. But in 2009 inSubh Ram's case (supra), this Court restricteddeductions on account of the "first component" ofdevelopment, as also, on account of the "secondcomponent" of development to 33-1/3 percent each. Theaforesaid deductions would roughly amount to 67percent of the component of the sale consideration ofthe exemplar sale transaction(s).”13.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mala (supra), at para14, has observed as under:“ 14...It is well settled position of law that while determiningthe deduction for development charges, the courts shouldkeep in mind the nature of land, area under acquisition,whether the land is developed or not, if developed to whatextent, the purpose of acquisition etc. Though, it is true thatwhile determining the market value of large chunk of land,the value of smaller pieces of land could be taken intoconsideration, however, after making appropriate deductionin the value of lands or setting apart land required forcarving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller 16 FA26.2005+plots etc. The percentage of deduction or the extent of arearequired to be set apart has to be assessed by the courtshaving regard to the size, shape, situation, user etc. of thelands acquired. It is essentially a kind of guess work thecourts are expected to undertake.”14.Having considered the submissions canvassed and thelaw laid down in case of Mala (supra) for computation ofcompensation, it is required to be noted that the lands are requiredfor extension of Gaothan area i.e. for housing purposes of thevillages. Thus, the housing potential of the land is without anydoubt. It is adjacent to the gaothan area and extension has beengranted and gaothan extension is proposed.15.Common evidence is led in all LARs and the claimants haveexamined 2 witnesses. The evidence of Witness No.1 Mr. JambuwantraoGirjappa Sonkawade would indicate that the lands which are acquiredare similar in nature to the land at Exhibits 18 and 19 and are within 800to 900 Ft. from Exhibits 18 and 19. Exhibits 18 and 19 are the landsadmeasuring approximately 273 Sq. Ft. in the village sold on the price ofRs.6,000/- in the year 1984. So also, the evidence of witness no.2 - the claimant, who iswitness to the sale deed at Exhibit 18, which is sold by his father. He hasstated that the lands are comparable and that the land is 800/- Ft. away
Arguments
6 FA26.2005+The Reference Court has further observed as regards theacquired lands that all other minus points are absent except largerarea. The Reference Court, thus, granted enhanced compensation atthe rate of Rs.15 and Rs.12 per sq. ft. to the claimants.8.It is the contention of the State that the learnedReference Court has erroneously relied upon the sale deeds 18, 19,20 and 49, 50 & 51 and, accordingly, held that claimants areentitled to compensation @ Rs. 15 and Rs.12. It is also contention ofthe State that Reference Court has relied upon sale instances ofsmall pieces of land and submits that reliance placed on the smallpieces of land in comparison to the large land is not permissible andit relies upon the judgment in the case of Union of India VsPremlata and others passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CivilAppeal No.176-177/2022 dated 06-04-2022.It is further contended by the State that the decision inLAR No. 864/1996, the land in question are not comparative innature. Thus, said enhancement granted by the Reference Court iserroneous. 7 FA26.2005+9.Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants appearingin the first appeals and cross objections submits that sale instancesat Exhibits 18 and 19 are dated 29-03-1984 and after applying 10%increase annually, the value comes to Rs.39.50ps on the date ofnotification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As such, theclaimants ought to have been entitled at least for Rs.39.50 ps per sq.ft. The Town Planner witness of the State Sanjay Aadhav (Exh.38)has stated that survey No.89, 90 & 118 are adjacent and similar innature to land at Exhibits 18 and 19. The learned Reference courthas held that there are no minus points for acquired land exceptlargeness of the land with reference to the sale instances. Learnedcounsel has submitted that the Reference Court erred in consideringthe value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.38 per sq. ft. bycomparable sale deed method, wherein the correct calculationshould have been Rs.39.50 per sq. ft.10.It is further submitted that the Reference Court hascommitted perversity by reducing 60% market value of Rs.38 per sq.ft. for survey No.89 i.e. Rs.22.80 and reduced 50% market value ofRs.38/- per Sq. Ft. i.e. Rs.19 per Sq. Ft. for survey No. 118.Although, the lands are adjacent, and, thus, it has reduced value of 8 FA26.2005+the acquired lands drastically in comparison to the value of theadjacent lands. Learned counsel further submits that after deductionof price @ 60% and @ 50% there is further deduction made in theprice of land of 1/3rd towards development charge. Thus, surveyNo. 89 is granted Rs.15 and survey No.118 granted Rs.12. Hesubmits that approach of the learned reference court in grantingreduction twice over is erroneous.11.He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Kasturi and others Vs State of Hariyana, (2003)1 SCC 354 to contend that the land is developed then only 20%deduction is permissible towards development charges and, thus,the learned reference court had erred in deducting 1/3rd towardsdevelopment charges.Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment ofHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mala and others Vs State ofPunjab and others reported in (2023) 9 SCC 315 to contend thatequivalent land value in the area of the acquisition has to be takenas the relatable value of the acquired land. Reference court oughtto have considered Rs.39.50 sq. ft. instead 38 as the referencepoints for granting compensation. 9 FA26.2005+12.In the case of Chandrashekhar (dead) by Lrs. Vs. LandAcquisition Officer, 2012 AIR (SC) 446 the Hon’ble Apex Court haslaid down various parameters of computation of compensation, asunder:“15. The present controversy calls for our determinationon the quantum of the deductions to be applied, to themarket value assessed on the basis of the exemplar saletransaction, so as to ascertain the fair compensationpayable to the land loser. The only factual parameters tobe kept in mind are, the factual inferences drawn in theforegoing paragraph. On the issue in hand, we shallendeavor to draw our conclusions from past precedent.In the process of consideration hereinafter, we havereferred to all the judgments relied upon by the LearnedCounsel for the Appellants, as well as, some recentjudgments on the issue concerned: (i) In Brigadier Sahib Singh Kalha and Ors. v.Amritsar Improvement Trust and Ors.MANU/SC/0352/1981MANU/SC/0352/1981 : (1982) 1SCC 419, this Court opined, that where a large area ofundeveloped land is acquired, provision has to be madefor providing minimum amenities of town-life.Accordingly it was held, that a deduction of 20 percentof the total acquired land should be made for land overwhich infrastructure has to be raised (space for roadsetc.). Apart from the aforesaid, it was also held, that thecost of raising infrastructure itself (like roads, electricity,water, underground drainage, etc.) need also to betaken into consideration. To cover the cost component,for raising infrastructure, the Court held, that thededuction to be applied would range between 20percent to 33 percent. Commutatively viewed, it washeld, that deductions would range between 40 and 53percent. 10 FA26.2005+(ii) Noticing the determination rendered by this Court inBrigadier Sahib Singh Kalha's case (supra), this Court inAdministrator General of West Bengal v. Collector,VaranasiMANU/SC/0008/1988MANU/SC/0008/1988 : (1988) 2SCC 150, upheld deduction of 40 percent (from theacquired land) as had been applied by the High Court.(iii) In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special LandAcquisition Officer, Poona and Anr.MANU/SC/0071/1988MANU/SC/0071/1988 : (1988) 3SCC 751, while referring to the factors which ought tobe taken into consideration while determining themarket value of acquired land, it was observed, that asmaller plot was within the reach of many, whereas for alarger block of land there was implicit disadvantages. Asa matter of illustration it was mentioned, that a largeblock of land would first have to be developed bypreparing its lay out plan. Thereafter, it would requirecarving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting outsmaller plots, waiting for purchasers (during which theinvested money would remain blocked). Likewise, it waspointed out, that there would be other known hazardsof an entrepreneur. Based on the aforesaid likelydisadvantages it was held, that these factors could bediscounted by making deductions by way of allowanceat an appropriate rate, ranging from 20 percent to 50percent. These deductions, according to the Court,would account for land required to be set apart fordevelopmental activities. It was also sought to beclarified, that the applied deduction would depend on,whether the acquired land was rural or urban, whetherbuilding activity was picking up or was stagnant,whether the waiting period during which the capitalwould remain locked would be short or long; and otherlike entrepreneurial hazards.(iv) In Land Acquisition Officer Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Chottor v. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by L.Rs.And Ors. MANU/SC/0040/1998MANU/SC/0040/1998: (1998) 2 SCC 385, this Court arrived at the conclusion,
Decision
17 FA26.2005+from the acquired land and there is adjacent highway connected to boththe acquired lands. There is land of society at the distance of 200 ft. fromthe acquired land. In the cross examination of the witness the State hasnot cross examined the witness to show that the lands acquired are anyway different from the land at Exhibits 18 and 19. The evidence is givenby the State of the Town Planner as witness no.1. In his deposition thesaid witness has stated that the photocopies of the various sale deedswere placed before the SLAO and, on the basis of same, SLAO hasgranted compensation. However, the sale deeds relied upon before theSLAO were not produced before the court by the State. It is not denied bythe witnesses of the State that the lands are comparable to Exhibits 18and 19, as the land comparable to the acquired land. The reference courthas also considered the same at paras 36 and 37. The relevant portion ofthe same is as under:“36....The evidence shown and the report of the awardspeaks there are all plus factors. Survey No.118 is divided byState High Way. It has two frontage on road. It is near todeveloped area. It is in safe. In regard to minus point allminus points are absent except larger area. The area is 1-H37-R. by applying common sense I inclined to pick-up themarket rate Rs.38/- per square feet. I may take 60% whichcomes Rs.22.80 paise per sq.feet for Sy. No.89. Likewise Iinclined to take 50% of Rs.38/- per square feet in respect ofSurvey No.118 which comes Rs.19/- per square feet. …37.In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt, the acquired land being agricultural at the time of itsacquisition / acquired for the purpose of residence andextension of Gaothan. It is, therefore, necessary to deduct1/3rd of its market value. I, therefore, by deducting 1/3rd 18 FA26.2005+from the market price Rs.22.80 paise per square feet itcomes Rs.15.20 paise per square feet, the round figureRs.15/- per square feet. Likewise the 1/3rd or Rs.19/- persquare feet comes Rs.12.66 paise in round figure Rs.12/- persq. feet. Therefore, I am in the firm view to determine themarket value of the land acquired from survey No.89 ofvillage Walandi shall be Rs.15/- per sq. feet and the marketvalue of the land acquired from survey No.118 shall beRs.12/- per square feet.”16.The question that arises for consideration is on issues oftwice deduction being made towards general deduction anddevelopment charges by the reference court. Perusal of the evidencewould show that Exhibit-18 is sale instance dated 29-03-1984 forthe price of Rs.21.97 paise. Price in 1984 is at Rs.21.97 paise per sq.ft. Sale instance is at Exh.19 is also at the same price.17.The Reference Court has also considered at para 36 that thelands have all the plus factors and it has two frontage road. It is near thedeveloped area and in regard to minus points all points are absent exceptlarger area. The lands are comparable. However, only for larger area theReference Court has correctly deducted 1/3 of it’s market value for thepurpose of large area. However, the Reference Court has also deducted60% of the price from the price of land at Exhibits 18 and 19, although,the lands in said exhibits are 800 ft. away from the acquired land. The 19 FA26.2005+method of adopting of deduction of 60% value and 50% value has nobasis in law.18.Since, the lands at exhibits 18 and 19 are comparable landexcept largeness, there are in all 3 deductions permitted by me. The firstis towards the development of amenities, second is towards the makingthe land comparable; which in the instant case would be marginal andthird is considering the sale instance at Exhibits 18 and 19 being of asmall land. Thus, in totality, I would permit total deduction of 45% of theprice at Exhibits 18 and 19. Considering the price of the land at Exhibits18 and 19 as Rs.39.50 per sq. ft. after deduction of 45%, the price of theacquired land would come to Rs.21.70/- per sq. ft. rounded up to Rs.22/-per sq. ft. The claimants are also entitled to all statutory benefits on theenhanced amount.19.All statutory benefits shall be worked out accordingly. TheExecuting Court to work out statutory benefits within four (04) weeksfrom the production of the order of this court. Thereafter, the State todeposit the enhanced compensation within a period of eight (8) weeks.20.The amount already deposited by the State before theReference Court / Executing Court is permitted to be withdrawn by theclaimants forthwith, so also, the enhanced amount as is computed in 20 FA26.2005+view of the present order and deposited before the Executing Court, isalso permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants.21.All the First Appeals, Cross Objections and Civil Applicationsare accordingly disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]marathe