Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:14126 1 fa 3858.08IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 3858 OF 2008Gahininath s/o Bandoba KadamDead L.Rs.1-ASanjay S/o Gahininath Kadam,Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadvana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.1-BMahadev S/o Gahininath Kadam,Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadvana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3865 OF 2008Baban S/o Baburao Muley,Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3852 OF 2008Bhaguji S/o Rangnath Kadam KateSince deceased through his L.Rs.1ABandhwana Kawerabai Sukhdev,Age : 67 Years, Occu. : Household, 2 fa 3858.08R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq. & Dist. Beed.1BMule Daivashala Shahaji,Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq. & Dist. Beed.1CSuresh S/o Bhaguji KadamAge : 63 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq. & Dist. Beed.1DBharat S/o Bhaguji KadamAge : 57 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq. & Dist. Beed... AppellantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3868 OF 2008Mohan s/o Baburao Muley,Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1555 OF 20041.Namdev S/o Ganpati Kate,(Dead L.Rs)
Facts
3 fa 3858.081-A.Sahebrao S/o Namdev Kate,Age 50 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed.1-B.Rambhau S/o Namdev Kate,Age 48 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellant VersusState of Maharashtra,through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3827 OF 2008Babu S/o Laxman Jogdand,Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3861 OF 2008Rambhau S/o Namdeo Kate,Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3829 OF 2008Uttam S/o Dadarao Mule, 4 fa 3858.08Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3855 OF 2008Ankush Dadarao Muley,Died, through legal heirs1A) Sindhubai w/o Ankush Muley,Age: 60 years, Occu: - Household,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed.1B) Rahul S/o Ankush Muley,Age: 35 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed.IC) Ranjeet S/o Ankush Muley,Age: 32 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed.1D) Balaji S/o Ankush Muley,Age: 30 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed... Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3826 OF 2008 5 fa 3858.081.Bhaskar S/o Barik Muley,Died, through legal heir,Kamraj S/o Bhaskar Muley,Age: 57 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq. and District Beed.2.Baban S/o Baburao Muley,Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2008Pandurang Dadarao Muley,Died, through legal heirs,1A) Putalabai w/o Pandurang Muley,Age: 70 years, Occu: - Household,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed.1B) Shobha w/o Appa Chavan, Age: 47 years, Occu: - Household,R/o near K. K. Ghule Vidyalaya, Malwadi, Manjari Budruk Pune.1C) Balu S/o Pandurang Muley,Age: 45 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed.1D) Nandabai w/o Gahininath Ghodke, 6 fa 3858.08Age: 43 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o Rujuri Ghodka,Tq & Dist: Beed... Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3828 OF 20081.Bhujang S/o Kondiba Muley,Died, through legal heirs,A)Laxman s/o Bhujang Muley,Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed.B)Chintaman S/o Bhujang Muley,Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3860 OF 20081.Ambadas S/o Dagadu Kate,Age : 45 years, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed.2.Bansi S/o Dagadu Kate, Age : 48 years, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellants 7 fa 3858.08 VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3859 OF 20081.Ganpati S/o Dhondiba Muley,Died, through legal heirs,1) Gahininath S/o Ganpati Muley,Died, through legal heirs1A) Gandharibai w/o Gahininath Muley,Age: 60 years, Occu: - Household,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed.1B) Ravindra S/o Gahininath Muley,Age: 32 years, Occu: - AgricultureR/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed.1C) Balasaheb S/o Gahininath Muley,Age: 30 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq & Dist: Beed... Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3866 OF 2008Baban S/o Dada Kate,Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellant 8 fa 3858.08 VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2008Shantirao Dadarao Mule,Died through his L.R’s1.Ramesh s/o Shantirao Muley,Age-49 years, Occu. Agri. & Service,2.Rajendra s/o Shantirao Muley,Age-51 years, Occu. Agri. & Service,3.Prayagbai Shantirao Muley,Age-80 years, Occu: Household,4.Nandabai Bhaskar Khose,Age-60 years, Occ: Household, All R/o Wadwana, Tq. & Dist. Beed... Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Osmanabad. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3863 OF 2008Kusum w/o Digambar Hajare,Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent 9 fa 3858.08WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2008Dasu s/o Dadarao Mule,Age : 55 years, Occu. Agriculture,R/o Wadvana, Tq. and District Beed... Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Osmanabad .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3856 OF 2008Bhaskar S/o Barikrao Muley,Died through legal heirs,Kamraj S/o Bhaskar Muley,Age: 57 years, Occu: - Agriculture,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq. and District Beed... Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 20081. Angad S/o Eknathrao Khose,Age-35 years, Occ: Agril.,R/o Wadhavana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.2. Lochanabai w/o Eknath Khose,Since deceased, Through : L.Rs.2-a) Shesherao s/o Eknathrao Khose,Since deceased, through L.R's
Legal Reasoning
33 fa 3858.08bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted.When the land is being compulsorily taken away from aperson, he is entitled to the highest value which similarland in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide transaction entered into between a willing purchaserand a willing seller near about the time of theacquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair thatwhere sale deeds pertaining to different transactions arerelied on behalf of the Government, the transactionrepresenting the highest value should be preferred to therest unless there are strong circumstances justifying adifferent course. It is not desirable to take an average ofvarious sale deeds placed before the authority/court forfixing fair compensation.”“16. Based on the above principles, the market value asper Ext.A-61 dated 22.07.1977 was Rs. 1,39,130.43 peracre (approx. Rs.1.40 lakhs per acre). The said sale deedwas two and a half years prior in time than Section 4(1)notification dated 22.12.1979. There is no reason toeschew the above sale transaction. It is also pointed outthat the lands covered under Ext.A-61 are nearer to thelands of the appellants under acquisition. This Courthas time and again granted 10% to 15% increase perannum. In Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory ofChandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659, this Court applied therule of 10% yearly increase for award of highercompensation. In Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 533, this Courtconsidered a batch of appeals and applied the rule ofannual increase for grant of higher compensation. InONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14SCC 745, this Court held that where the acquired land isin urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tuneof 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land issituated in rural areas, increase can be between 5% to7.5% per annum. In Union of India vs. Harpat Singh & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 375, this Court applied the rule of10% increase per annum. Based on the above principle,we fix the annual increase at 12% per annum and withthat rate of increase, the market value of the appellants’ 34 fa 3858.08land would come to Rs.1,82,000 per acre as on the date ofnotification.” Applying the above principles, while consideringcomparable sale instance which is at 27, this Court has added7.5% as yearly increase. Accordingly, rate has been fixed at Rs.1,075/- per ARE. (vii)The State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman S/o BhauDambre (Died) through L.Rs. in First Appeal No.1581 of2004.I have gone through paragraph Nos.27 to 30 of thejudgment. The acquisition of land before learned Single Judgewas pertaining to the same project. Subject land was situated atvillage Ieet. The price was fixed at Rs.1000/- per ARE.Appellant relied upon paragraph No.7. Relying on the same, Ihave considered sale instance at Exh.27 as foundation to fix therate.(viii)Vidarbha Irrigation Development CorporationVs. Laxman Seetaram Neulkar and another ; 2020 DGLS(Bom.) 555.Reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.16 to 22. To supportthe proposition, Court can grant more compensation thanclaimed by the claimant. There can be no dispute for thisproposition. In the present case, evidence on record does notmake out a case that appellants are entitled to morecompensation than claimed by them. 35 fa 3858.08(ix)The State of Maharashtra and others Vs.Ambads Wamanrao Deshmukh in First Appeal No.1633 of2014.The matter had reached High Court emanating fromacquisition of land for same project which was situated at Ieet.Rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.1500/- per ARE wasconfirmed by High Court. The same sale instance has also beenquoted in the present matter. But, I have recorded findings thatsale instance at Exh.27 from village Vadhwana where the subjectlands are situated is the most relevant. Exemplar and therefore,the rate in that case cannot be adopted in the case at hand. 2.(x) State of Maharashtra and others Vs. BaliramGirdhar Patil reported in 2006(6) Mh. L. J. 82.I have considered para Nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment inthe matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil(supra). The proposition cannot be disputed. In the case in handno submissions are advanced on the ground that assessment ofthe lands in question is erroneous, hence this judgment is nothelpful to the appellants.(xi) State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahadu Aba Sheteand others reported in 2009(1) All MR 186.Propositions in para Nos. 21 and 22 of the judgment in thematter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahadu Aba Shete and others (supra)are undisputed. In the present case I have preferred to rely onsale instances of self same village. I have also gone through thejudgment in the matter of Mahadev Vs. Assistant Commissioner/Land 36 fa 3858.08Acquisition Officer (supra). In the body of the reasoning I haverecorded that judgment of other Reference Courts pressed intoservice cannot be applied because in those cases the lands ofdifferent villagers were acquired. In the case in hand better saleinstances are available for reliance.25.Learned AGP relied on the following judgments :(i)Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer, Poona and another ; (1988) 3 SupremeCourt Cases 751I have gone through paragraph No.19 of the judgment. Itis pressed into service to show that the land of the appellants aresituated at the interior area and cannot fetch the price claimedby the appellants. The ratio laid down therein cannot bedisputed but that cannot be made applicable to the case at hand.In our case, lands are situated in rural area and appropriatecomparable sale instance from the same village is available. (ii)Union of India Vs. Premlata and others ; (2022)7 Supreme Court Cases 745.Reliance is placed on paragraph No.14, 15, 16, 16.1, 16.2.Facts of the cited judgment are distinguishable and ratio cannotbe made applicable. (iii)Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India ;AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3467.I have gone through paragraph Nos.26 and 27 which are 37 fa 3858.08cited by the respondents. In that case, the probative value ofphoto copies of sale deeds was under consideration. Consideringthe difference in the facts, the ratio cannot be made applicable tothe present case. (iv)Venkatrao Ramchandrarao Patil Vs. State ofMaharashtra ; Airoline 2022 Bom 1325.Reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.9 to 11. Facts in thecited judgment are distinguishable. In the case at hand, the bestsale instance at Exh.27 is available to determine the marketvalue. Hence, this judgment is not helpful to the respondents.(v)Vidarbha Irrigation Development CorporationVs. Vinayak and others in First Appeal No.791 of 2010.I have gone through paragraph Nos.10 to 15 of thejudgment. It is distinguishable on facts from the case at hand. Itcannot enure to the benefit of the respondents.(vi) State of UP and another Vs. Rajendra Singhreported in (1996) 7 SCC 347.The proposition of law in paragraph No. 3 of the judgmentin the matter of State of UP and another Vs. Rajendra Singh (supra) istrite law and has been followed in the case in hand also.Therefore, this Court has not accepted enhancement as claimedby the appellants.(vii)Hookiyar Singh and others Vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer, Moradabad and another reported in(1996) 3 SCC 766. 38 fa 3858.08I have also gone through the paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of thejudgment in the matter of Hookiyar Singh and others Vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer, Moradabad and another (supra). Applying theprinciples laid down therein the rate has been determined in thepresent appeals. I have perused paragraph Nos. 5 to 9 of thejudgment in the matter of Basant Kumar and others Vs. Union of India andothers (supra). Applying the arm chair rule, I have fixed the ratein the present appeals.26.It is vehemently contended by the appellants that theacquiring body did not adduce any oral evidence. The rateclaimed by the appellants and the reports of valuation shouldhave been accepted. Merely because respondent did not adduceoral evidence would not mean that whatever evidence led by theappellant is a gospel truth and has to be accepted. Therespondent has effectively cross examined witnesses of theappellants. The findings recorded by the Reference Court fordiscarding the valuation reports are confirmed by this Court.This Court has come to conclusion regarding rate on the basis ofmaterial on record and law laid down by the Supreme Court.Therefore, submissions of the appellants cannot be accepted.27.Appellants are successful in proving that sale instance atExhibit-27 should have been the foundation for fixing the rates.It was prior to the notification dated 28.06.1990. Therefore,addition of 7.5% would make the rate more competable. Thus,the rate at the relevant time comes to Rs. 1,075/-per R. The ratederived by the Reference Court to the tune of Rs. 628/- per R is 39 fa 3858.08illegal and liable to be enhanced to Rs. 1,075/- per R.28.Point No. IV :-The valuation reports of wells at Exhibit-41 to Exhibit-46and that of trees at Exhibit-39 were not before S.L.A.O. Thosewere produced in the Reference Court. PW-4 and PW-11 wereexamined who were the private valuers. Award at Exhibit-9refers to valuation of 8 wells and 57 trees. Appellants haverestricted their claims to 28 Mango trees. I have gone throughthe deposition of above referred witnesses. Appellants did notraise any objection under Section 12(2) of the Act. No panchnamawas conducted when the valuers visited the lands. The reportand the oral evidence do not disclose that relevant factors weretaken into account for arriving at the valuation. Reference Courthas elaborately dealt with the report at Exhibit Nos.41 to 46 byappreciating the oral evidence in that regard in paragraph no.18of the judgment. I do not find that there is any perversity orerror in appreciating the evidence on record. The enhancementon the basis of such evidence can not be approved. 29.Reference Court has elaborately dealt with claim of theappellants in respect of mango trees in paragraph Nos.20 and 21of the impugned judgment. I have gone through Exhibit-39 andthe evidence of PW-4. The valuation report at Exhibit-39 isdoubtful and it can not enure to the benefit of the appellants. Thefindings recorded by the Reference Court are plausible and nointerference is called for. Appellants are unable to proved thatthey are being paid inadequate compensation for the wells and 40 fa 3858.08the trees in the subject land.(i)Godawari Marathwada Irrigation DevelopmentCorporation and another Vs. Lalasaheb DadasahebDeshmukh (Died) Through L.Rs. and another in FirstAppeal No.1743 of 2017.In the reported case, the acquired land from village Ieetand it was for the same project. Reliance is placed on paragraphNos.8 to 10. On the basis of the principles it is contended thatsome guess work is permissible and therefore valuation of theexpert should have been accepted. I have already recorded thatthe valuation reports are liable to be discarded. The sale instanceat Exh.27 from village Vadhwana is found to be more akin to thefacts involved in the present appeals. This ratio cannot be blindlymade applicable to the present case. (ii)Kasturabai Manikrao Karpe Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others ; 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 661 and (xi)Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, YavatmalVs. Kishor Awadhutrao Umratkar and others ; 2021 DGLS(Bom.) 339.In both the matters expert’s valuation report was reliedupon. However, case at hand shows that valuation reports areliable to be discarded. Considering the distinguishing facts,these judgments would not help the appellants. (iii)Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer and others AIR 1988 SC 1652.I have considered para No. 4 of the judgment in the matter 41 fa 3858.08of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others(supra). The principles mentioned there in cannot be disputed.I have also gone through para Nos. 28, 29, 32 and 34 of thejudgment in the matter of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State ofMaharashtra (supra). After appreciating the valuation reports inthe case at hand and the oral evidence, Reference Court rightlydiscarded them. I have my reservations. This judgment isdistinguishable on facts.30.Point No. V :-I have already recorded that considering sale instance atExhibit-27, rate of Rs.628/- per R needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,075/- per R. Accordingly appellants are entitled toenhancement in the compensation. Appellants have failed toprove that valuation for the wells and the trees are inadequate.Appellants have not advanced any submissions challengingimpugned judgment and award on any other aspects of thematter. Hence, these appeals succeed partly.31.For the reasons assigned above, I pass following order : O R D E RA.First Appeals are allowed partly.B. Common Judgment and award dated 15.04.2004 passed byAd-hoc Additional District Judge, Beed stands modified only tothe extent of rate of the land which stands enhanced fromRs.628/- per R to Rs. 1,075/- per R in every appeal and 42 fa 3858.08compensation shall be calculated accordingly in each case.C.Except the above modification in operative part clause (I)in each references, rest of the operative part of the judgment andaward under challenge stands confirmed.D.Appellants are entitled to receive compensation as per theenhanced rate referred above along with interest and statutorybenefits as awarded by Reference Court and confirmed by thepresent judgment. E.Appellants shall pay deficit court fees on enhancedamount.F.Award be drawn accordingly in each of the appeals. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ]bsb/May 25
Arguments
10 fa 3858.082-a-i) Venubai Rajabhau Shinde,Age: 58 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Vaidyakini, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.2-a-ii)Ashabai Gautam Zodge,Age: 51 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.2-a-iii)Meena w/o Vasant Nalawade,Age: 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Nandehwar, Tq. Bhoom,Dist. Osmanabad.2-a-iv)Vaishali w/o Vasant Ubale,Age: 47 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Charata, Tq. & Dist. Beed.2-b) Baburao s/o Eknathrao Khose, Age: 42 years, Occu: Agril., R/o. Wadhawana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.2-c) Bhaskar s/o Eknathrao Khose, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o Wadhawana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.3. Gautam Shrirang Zodge,Died through His L.R's3-a)Smt. Ashabai Gautam Zodge, Age-51 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.3-b)Pravin s/o Gautam Zodge, Age-31 years, Occ: Agri, R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala,Tq. & Dist. Beed.3-c) Sau. Seema Ramhari Shingre, 11 fa 3858.08Age-29 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala,Tq. & Dist. Beed.4.Babasaheb Alias Balu S/o Rambhau Matkar,Age 30 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o Wadhavana, Ta. And Dist. Beed... Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through The Collector, Beed. .. RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3968 OF 2008Mahadeo s/o Vasudev Muley,Age : Major, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through, The Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3864 OF 2008Kamraj S/o Bhaskarrao Muley,Age : 36 yrs, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through, The Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3853 OF 2008Ashruba S/o Rangnath Kadam, 12 fa 3858.08Age : ___ yrs, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through, Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3832 OF 2008Saheba S/o Namdeo KateAge : Major, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through, The Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3833 OF 20081)Ganpati s/o Barikrao Hajare,Since deceased through L.Rs.1ADattu S/o Ganpati HagareAge : 65 years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,Tq. and Dist. Beed.1BGulab S/o Ganpati HagareAge : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,Tq. and Dist. Beed.1CChaguna w/o Dada Pawar,Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Pandhrewadi, Tq. Paranda,Dist. Osmanabad. 13 fa 3858.081DLalita W/o Babasaheb Wayse,Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,Dist. Jalna.2)Sahebrao s/o Barikrao Hajare,Age : Major, Occu. : Agri.,R/o Wadhwana, Tq. & Dist. Beed.3)Waman S/o Barikrao Hajare,Since deceased through L.Rs.3AKaushalya w/o Waman Hagare,Age : 75 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,Tq. and Dist. Beed.3BLochanabai W/o Popat Kokane,Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,Tq. and Dist. Beed.3CSunita W/o Audumbar Atule,Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o At Near Ganesh Naik Prashala,76, Ratnamanjiri nagar, Jule Solapur,Tq. & Dist. Solapur.3DSalubai w/o Vasudev Bhure,Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o At Ruighavan,Tq. & Dist. Solapur.3EAnita W/o Chandrakant Nakure,Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o At Jawalgaon, Tq. Ambejogai,District Beed... AppellantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra, 14 fa 3858.08Through, The Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3857 OF 20081)Gahininath s/o Bandoba Kadam(Dead L.R’s)1-A)Sanjay Gahininath Kadam,Age : 36 years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.1-B)Mahadev s/o Gahininath Kadam,Age : 47 years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through, Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3867 OF 20081)Khandu s/o Gopinath KateDied, through legal heirs1A)Tatyaram S/o Khandu KateAge : 58 years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,Tq. and Dist. Beed.1B)Kesharbai w/o Jagannath Bhosale,Age : 61 years, Occu. : Household,R/o Satefhal, Tq. Jamkhed,District Ahmednagar.1C)Manisha w/o Hanumant Shinde,Age : 52 years, Occu. : Household,R/o Nipani, Tq. Bhoom,Dist. Osmanabad. 15 fa 3858.082)Malhari S/o Dada Kate,Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadwana, Tq. & Dist. Beed... AppellantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through, Collector, Beed... RespondentWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3854 OF 20081)Vithal s/o Sadashiv KateDied, through Lrs.2A)Baban S/o Sadashiv Kate3B)Kerba S/o Sadashiv Kate,4C)Haridas Sadashiv Kate,Age : Both are Majjor, Occu. : Agril.,R/o Wadvana, Tq. and Dist. Beed... AppellantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through, The Collector, Beed... RespondentShri Ankush N. Nagargoje, Advocate h/f Shri D. M. Mane and Shri S. K. Naikwade, Advocates for the Appellants in respective matters.Shri Ramraje A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants in respective matters.Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the Respondent.CORAM :SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON:06.05.2025JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:09.05.2025JUDGMENT :- 16 fa 3858.08.This is a group of first appeals of the agriculturists who areclaiming enhancement of compensation. They are aggrieved bycommon judgment and award passed by the Reference Court on15.04.2004, partly enhancing the rate of compensation.2.For the sake of convenience and with the consent of theparties, I propose to refer to papers of First Appeal No. 3865 of2008 and First Appeal No. 3852 of 2008. Parties have ledcommon evidence in L. A. R. No. 28 of 1996 and L. A. R. No. 224of 1996. First Appeal No. 3865 of 2006 is arising out of L. A. R.No. 28 of 1996. The arguments are led by learned advocates Mr.Ankush Nagargoje and Mr. Ramraje Deshmukh for theappellants.3.The respondent/acquiring body had undertaken acquisitionfor Urdhva Manjara Medium Project or Dokewadi project or Ieetproject. The lands from village Loni (Ghat), Ieet, Lanjeshwar,Wadwana and Jategaon were acquired. Notifications U/Sec. 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act (for the sake of convenience and brevityhereinafter referred as to the ‘L.A. Act’) were issued on differentdates. These appeals pertain to acquisition of lands from villageWadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.4.Following are the undisputed facts :(i)Notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was issued for thelands in question at Wadwana on 28.06.1990. 17 fa 3858.08(ii)By private negotiations possession of the lands was takenon 01.10.1989.(iii)Notification U/Sec. 9 of the L. A. Act was issued on03.10.1991.(iv)Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer(for short ‘S.L.A.O.’) on 05.08.1993.(v)Appellants received compensation/payment under proteston 01.11.1993.(vi)Appellants led oral evidence of eight witnesses before theReference Court. Respondents did not lead any oral evidence.(vii)Appellants produced various sale instances. They alsoproduced various judgments of the Reference Court, which wereakin to the facts in question as well as judgments of the HighCourt to determine the rate of compensation.(viii)The S.L.A.O. determined the rate of Rs. 150/- per R to 210per R for Jirayat land. It was enhanced by the Reference Courtto Rs. 628 per R. Appellants have claimed rate of Rs. 1500/- perR.(ix)Reference Court relied on three sale instances namelyExhibits 26, 27 and 36 and has drawn average to arrive at rate ofRs. 628 per R.(x)Appellants are claiming compensation for eight (08) wells 18 fa 3858.08and mango trees. The valuation report for well at Exhibits 41 to46 and for trees at Exhibits 39 are relied on by them, which werediscarded by Reference Court. 05.The substratum of submissions of Mr. Ankush N.Nagargoje, learned counsel for appellants is as follows :IRate fixed by the Reference court and the consequentialcompensation awarded by it are extremely inadequate,unreasonable and against voluminous evidence on record.IIAppellants are entitled to receive compensation at the rateof Rs. 1,500/- per R as the lands were irrigated due to permanentsource of water from wells and the river. Appellants’ voluminousevidence of comparative sale instances, rates given by theReference Court for the similarly situated lads and law laid downby the High Court are overlooked erroneously and highhandedly.IIIReference Court has committed error of jurisdiction indiscarding valuation report of wells and mango trees. In thatregard oral evidence of P.W. No. 7 – Ramhari Bayaji Ghodke andP.W. No. 4 - Bhimrao Gopal Bhujbal was not properlyappreciated.IVThe method adopted by the Reference Court of averagingthe rates from Exhibits 21, 27 and 36 is arbitrary and perverse. VReference Court has committed gross illegality indiscarding sale instance at Exhibit 27, which was from Wadwanavillage only and which was proved by oral evidence of P.W. No. 2 19 fa 3858.08– Kamraj Mule. There was no reason to look for any other saleinstance.VIAlternatively, sale instance in L.A.R. No. 294 of 1997 ofland at Lanjeshwar belonging to Ambalal Deshmukh shouldhave been considered as basis for fixing the rate. VIIIt should have been held that the lands under acquisitionbeing irrigated lands should fetched rate double than Rs. 1,050/-per R.VIIIAcquired lands were irrigated, fertile and Bagayat lands.Joint measurement report, oral evidence and award of S.L.A. arenot appreciated properly.IXOn the ground of parity appellants are entitled to receivemore compensation and for that purpose judgments passed bythe Reference Court in respect of acquisition of lands from villageIeet, Lanjeshwar are pressed into service.XOn the ground of parity appellants relied on the judgmentof the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 290 of2007 and Single Bench in First Appeal No. 88 of 2008 as well asin First Appeal No. 36 of 2008 with connected matters.06.Learned counsel Mr. Ramraje Deshmukh for the appellantsadds that the guess work in valuation report is permissible andExhibit 39, 41 to 46 should not have been discarded. Appellantsare entitled to addition of 15% per annum in comparable sale 20 fa 3858.08instances.07.Reliance is placed on following judgments of the SupremeCourt and this Court :IAli Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of J. & K reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717.IIPremwati and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2013 (6) All M. R. 459 (S.C.)IIIChindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon reported in AIR 2012 SC 481.IVMehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432.VRaghunath Baba Pathare and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 (6) Bom.C.R. 473.VINarayan Yashwanta Kapse Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 832.VIIThe State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Bhau Dambre (died) through L.Rs. in F. A. No. 1581 of 2004.VIIIGodawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation and another Vs. Lalasaheb Dadasaheb Deshmukh (Died) through L.Rs. and another in F. A. No. 1743 of 2017.IXVidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Laxman Seetaram Neulkar and another 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 555.XKasturbai Manikrao Karpe Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2020 DGLS (Bom. 661. 21 fa 3858.08XIExecutive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal Vs. Kishor Awadhutrao Umratkar and others reported in 2021 DGLS (Bom) 339.XIIThe State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ambadas Wamanrao Deshmukh in F. A. No. 1633 of 2014.XIIIState of Maharashtra and others Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patilreported in 2006(6) Mh. L. J. 82.XIVChimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others AIR 1988 SC 1652.XVMahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2962.XVIState of Maharashtra Vs. Sahadu Aba Shete and others reported in 2009(1) All MR 186.XVIIMahadev Vs. Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2002) 9 SCC 487.08. Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, learned AssistantGovernment Pleader has canvassed following submissions :(a)In the award of S.L.A.O. threadbare scrutiny was maderegarding classification of the land. The subject lands are ClassII, III and IV lands. In all 29 sale instances were considered toarrive at the rate. All aspects were considered in the award.(b)Reference Court has also dealt with all the sale instancesand adopted averaging method to come to the conclusion of Rs.628/- per R., which is reasonable and legal.(c)Appellants are not entitled to any higher rate by relying on 22 fa 3858.08various judgments of Reference Court or High Court because ofdistinguishable facts and circumstances.(d)Appellants did not raise any objection in response to noticeU/Sec. 12(2) of the L. A. Act. Their claim for higher rate isimaginary and axiomatic.(e)Reference Court rightly considered evidence of P.W. No. 1in paragraph Nos. 22 to 24 of the impugned judgment. Similarlyevidence of P.W. No. 2 Kamraj was also rightly appreciated.(f)The valuation reports of the wells and the trees are rightlydiscarded by the Reference Court. Those reports were preparedsubsequently.(g)There was no material to show that subject lands wereirrigated. Merely existence of wells in few lands is not sufficient.There is no admissible evidence before the Reference Court.09.Learned A. G. P. has relied on following judgments of theSupreme Court and this Court:i)Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another reported in (1988( 3 SCC 751.ii)Union of India Vs. Premlata and others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 745.iii)Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 3467.iv)Venkatrao Ramchandrrarao Patil Vs. State of 23 fa 3858.08Maharashtra AIR Online 2022 Bom 1325.v)Judgment dated 11.07.2017 in First Appeal No. 791 of 2010in the matter of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Vinayak and others.vi)Basant Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1996) 11 SCC 542.vii)Hookiyar Singh and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and another reported in (1996) 3 SCC 766.viii)State of UP and another Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (1996) 7 SCC 347.10.Having heard rival submissions of the parties, followingpoints arise for termination.IWhether appellants prove that subject lands are irrigated lands, yielding Bagayati crops ?IIWhether the rate of Rs. 628/- per R fixed by the Reference Court is reasonable, legal and proper ?IIIWhether appellants are entitled to enhancement in the rate of land ?IVWhether valuation of the wells and the trees reasonable and adequate ?VWhether any interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award ?11.Appellants examined seven witnesses in L. A. R. No. 28 of1996 and one witness in L.A.R. No. 24 of 1996. They placed on 24 fa 3858.08record valuation reports of wells at Exhibit 41 to 46 andvaluation report of trees at Exhibit 39. Photo copies of 7/12extracts were also placed on record. Besides that judgmentspassed by the Reference Courts in the matters of acquisition oflands for the same project and the judgments of High Court werealso placed on record. By way of additional evidence for the firsttime in the High Court a report of joint measurement is placedon record. Notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was issued on28.06.1990 for the purpose of acquisition of subject lands fromvillage Wadwana, Award at Exhibit 09 was passed on05.08.1993.12.In the award at Exhibit 09, lands of Wadwana areclassified as Class II, III and IV. Considering the sale instancesS.L.A.O. fixed the rate for Jirayat land from Rs. 150/- per R to175/- per R. In all nine wells were found in the subject lands.Out of that one was found to be backfilled. Trees were found inthe land, valuation was done for them, which is reflected in theaward. Appellants have pressed into service reports of privatevaluers. P.W. No. 07 issued reports from Exhibit 41 to 46 forwells, whereas P.W. No. 4 issued report at Exhibit 39 for trees.Appellants are restricting their claims to 28 mango trees only.The above referred reports are subsequent to award passed bythe S. L. A. O. In this backdrop I propose to adjudicate thepoints framed above.13.Point No. I :It is vehemently contended by the appellants that subject 25 fa 3858.08lands are situated on the bank of river Majra and there wereeight wells, hence those were irrigated lands yielding bagayaticrops. My attention is adverted to clause No. 5 of the award,evidence of P.W. No. 1- Baban, P.W. No. 2 – Kamraj, P.W. No. 4 –Ambadas, village map which is at Exhibit 17 and the valuationreport. It is stated in the award at Exhibit 09 in para 5 that thesubject lands are situated on bank of river Manjra and they arefertile having black soil. It also refers to total nine wells situatedin the lands. Village map also shows existence of river Manjra inthe vicinity of said lands. Despite that reference court treatedthe subject lands to be Jirayat lands.14.I have gone through evidence of P.W. No. 1 – Baban andP.W. No. 2 – Kamraj. They both have deposed that theiracquired lands were irrigated lands. Appellants did not place onrecord corroborative and admissible evidence to support theirtheory. No 7/12 extracts, any receipts of agricultural produce,electricity bills are coming forth to show that lands wereirrigated and yielding Bagayati crops. It was possible for them toplace on record the reliable evidence. Merely stating in thedeposition that lands were irrigated is not sufficient. There is noconvincing evidence in that regard.15.It has come on record that resource of water through wellswas not available for every subject land. There were only eightwells. This group of appeals involves 30 different lands.Therefore, same yardstick can not be applied to every subjectland. There is no evidence on record that all the subject lands 26 fa 3858.08were yielding bagayati crops and permanent source of water wasavailable. P.W. 2 – Kamraj has deposed that his land from selfsame village was Jirayati one and it is treated to sale instance atExhibit 27.16.Reference Court has appreciated oral evidence. I do notfind any illegality or the perversity in the findings recorded bythe Reference Court in para Nos. 26 and 27 of the impugnedjudgment and award. Appellants have failed to make out a casethat subject lands are irrigated and yielding bagayati crops.17.Point Nos. II and III :-Reference Court has considered following three saleinstances :a) Sale deed dated 15.05.1989 for 14 gunthas of land situated at Lonighat which is proved by PW-5 and marked as Exhibit-21 having rate of Rs.1285 per R.b) Sale deed dated 23.05.1989 for 01 acre situated at Wadwana at the rate of Rs.1000/- per R. It is marked as Exhibit-27 and proved by PW-2/Kamraj.c) Index- II of sale of 8R of land situated at village Ieet for the rate of Rs.1500/- per R. It is at Exhibit-3 and proved by PW-4 /Ambadas.18.Considering location of land, size of land and source ofwater, the probable rates are calculated on the basis of every sale 27 fa 3858.08instance. The probable rate as per sale deed Exhibit-21 wasRs.385.50 per R, probable rate as per sale deed Exhibit-27 wasRs.1050/- per R and as per Exhibit-36 it was Rs.450/-per R. Theserates were treated to be representative market prices of the land.By averaging those rates, final rate of Rs.628/- per R is derivedwhich would be the rate at the time of notification under Section4 i.e on 28.06.1990.19.The method adopted by the Reference Court is whollyuncalled for. The sale instance at Exhibit-21 and Exhibit-36 werefrom village Lonighat and Ieet respectively. Sale deed at Exhibit-21 was for 14 gunthas whereas sale instance at Exhibit-36 was of8R. The sale instance at Exhibit-27 for 01 Acre stands at betterfooting and the most comparable. It is pertaining to land atWadwana itself and transaction is prior to Section 4 of thenotification. A sizable land of 01 acre was sold at the rate ofRs.1000/- per R as compared to small pieces of land of other saleinstances. Reference Court has observed that it’s a genuinetransaction and proved before the Court by PW-2/Kamraj whohimself is claimant in one of the references. It is the best piece ofevidence available for the Reference Court to fix the rate. 20.I am of the considered view that the method of averagingundertaken by the Reference Court is arbitrary and prejudicialto the claim of the appellants. I am fortified by the ratio laiddown by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. HansRaj reported in (1994) 5 SCC 734. Following is the relevant extract. 28 fa 3858.08"Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions,we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of theHigh Court committed a grave error in working out average price paidunder the sale transactions to determine the market value of theacquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the pricesfetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times,for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, couldbring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as theprice to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have,ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine andbona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or inits absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point ofacquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquiredlands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect thetrue value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in thenormal market conditions are the real basis to determine the marketvalue." 21.Appellants have also pressed into service the ratesdetermined by the Courts in different reference proceedings inrespect of acquisition of the land for the self-same project. I havegone through the following judgments of the reference courtwhich are pressed into service on the grounds of parity.a)Common judgment and award dated 23.06.1998 in L.A.RNo.314 of 1994 with connected matters. In that acquired landswere situated at village Ieet and rate of Rs.1250/- per R wasawarded.b)Common judgment and award dated 23.06.1998 in L.A.RNo.303 of 1994 and others. Lands were situated at Ieet and rateof Rs.1250/- per R was awarded.c)Common judgment and award dated 23.06.1998 in L.A.R 29 fa 3858.08No.301 of 1994 situated at village Ieet awarding rate ofRs.1250/- per R.d)Judgment and award dated 28.08.2002 in L.A.R No. 994 of1997 for land situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate ofRs.1500/- per R.e) Common judgment and award dated 04.02.2005 in L.A.RNo.36 of 1998 with connected matters situated at villageLonighat awarding rate of Rs.1000/- per R.f)Common judgment and award dated 07.03.2013 in L.A.RNo.196 of 1997 situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate ofRs.1500/- per R.g)Common judgment and award dated 17.06.2002 in L.A.RNo.301 of 1994 situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate ofRs.1250/- per R.h)Common judgment and award dated 17.04.2007 in L.A.RNo.179 of 1997 situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate ofRs.1500/- per R.22.I would have accepted the rate in the above sale instancesfor determining the prices. The lands in the above references aresituated at place other than Wadvana. The sale instance atExhibit-27 for the land at Wadvana is more akin to the subjectlands as compared to the lands in above references. Thereference court has rightly discarded sale instances of above 30 fa 3858.08references. I do not find any illegality in it.23.Judgment and award dated 04.02.2025 in L.A.R No.36 of1998 with connected matters was confirmed by Division Bench ofBombay High Court. The rate of Rs.1000/- per R was approved.Similarly, judgment and award dated 07.02.2005 passed in groupof lands in L.A.R No.51 of 1998 was also confirmed by HighCourt. In above proceedings, lands from other villages wereacquired. When best sale instance is available, there is no needto refer to acquisition from village Lanjeshwar or any otherplace. For the same reason, judgment of the Learned SingleJudge in group of First Appeal No.36 of 1998 and others can be ofany avail to the appellants.24.Following judgments are cited by appellants :(i)Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of J& K ; (2017) 4 SCC 717.I have gone through relevant paragraph Nos.12 and 13 ofthe judgment which indicate that sale instances of the landsacquired for the same purpose and same time can be treated tobe comparable instances. Following the said principles I holdthat sale instance at Exh.27 in the present appeals is reliable. (ii)Premwati and another Vs. Union of India andothers ; 2013 (6) All M.R. 459 (SC).I have considered paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the judgment.It is also on the point that the sale instance of the land of the 31 fa 3858.08adjacent village is relevant. In the case at hand, I propose to relyon sale instance of selfsame village i.e. Vadhavana by relying onExh.27. (iii)Raghunath Baba Pathare and others Vs. Stateof Maharashtra ; 2009 (6) Bom.C.R.473.This is cited to buttress that if well is located in theacquired land it would be treated as irrigated land. I do not findthat any binding principles of law is laid down in it. Theobservations are in the context of those facts which cannot bemade applicable to the present case. (iv)Chindha Fakira Patil (D) Through L.Rs. Vs.The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon ; 2012 (2)Mh.L.J. 530.This judgment is cited by the appellants to make out apoint that method of averaging the prices for fixing the marketvalue of the acquired land has been disapproved by the SupremeCourt. I have gone through paragraph Nos.11 of the judgmentwhich inter alia refers to various judgments of the SupremeCourt. In that matter, High Court had reversed the findings ofthe Reference Court. High Court relied upon average sale price ofthe transactions. Following is the relevant paragraph ;"12. In view of the law laid down in the above noted threejudgments, it must be held that the High Courtcommitted an error by refusing to rely upon Exhibit 28on the ground that the average sale price of thetransactions relied upon by the respondent was far lessthan the price for which land was sold vide Exhibit 28." 32 fa 3858.08(v)Narayan Yashwanta Kapse Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others ; 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 391.This judgment is cited to corroborate the proposition thatexpert’s evidence cannot be discarded. However, in the citedjudgment, Dr. Patil was expert in horticulture. He had visitedthe land and prepared report of fruit bearing trees. Apanchnama was conducted when he visited the lands. In thatcase, oral evidence of panch was also adduced. In those context,learned Single Judge recorded observations in paragraph Nos.10and 11. Such is not the fact situation in the case at hand. Nopanchnama was conducted in the present appeals. Consideringthe cross-examination of P.W. Nos. 4 and 11, their valuationreports are rejected. Hence, this judgment would not enure tothe benefits of the appellants. (vi)Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot and othersVs. State of Punjab and others ; AIR 2012 Supreme Court2721.Appellants relied on paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of thejudgment to support proposition that the bonafide transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of land situated inneighbourhood is the parameter for selecting the comparable saleinstance and average price derived is not the proper method.The above referred proposition is applicable to the present caseand has been followed. Besides that, following are the guidingprinciples laid down in it."15.It is clear that when there are several exemplarswith reference to similar lands, it is the general rule thatthe highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a