Judgment 1] All these 17 appeals filed by the State arise out of the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court, Buldhana, in land acquisition references, sought by the land owners in respect of their lands acquired for the Pentakli Project vide notification dated 23.11.1995. 2] Details like, survey no, area acquired, compensation awarded by S.L.A.O., compensation awarded by Reference Court, are reproduced below in tabular form: First Area Dnyanba Compensation Compensation Survey TotalArea Name Of Date of SrNo Appeal Acquired Awarded By LAC No. By Reference No./GatNo. (H.R) Land Owner Decision No. (H.R.) S.L.A.O.(P.H.) Court (P.H.) 1 215/08 39 8.65 8.65 RamchandraJagannath Rs.60,243/-339/2000 15/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/- Tambat& Others, Vil:Chikhali. ( Resp) 2 353/08 97/197/1(I) 1.050.88 1.050.88 Ramkrishna Kathale (Resp) Rs.58,314/-Rs. 60,848/- 318/2000 26/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/ 3 367/08 32/1 2.82 2.82 VikramTukaramShejol. (Resp)) Rs.61,944/- 377/2000 24/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/ 4 848/08 93/2A 0.54 0.54 BhagwanDagaduShejol (Resp) Rs.61,944/- 378/2000 17/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/ 5 883/08 48/329/430/2 1.421.914.91 0.271.912.90 Bhaskar Sakharam Rokde…..... (Resp) Rs.56,612/-Rs.59,827/-Rs.59,713/- 336/2000 18/04/06 Rs.1,17,500/-Rs.1,17,500/-Rs.1,27,500/- Atmaram 6 920/08 31/1 3.30 3.30 ShriramDhamak ThruLR's Rs.60,545/- 319/2000 12/04/06 Rs.1,15,000/+ (Resp) 7 953/08 99/4104/1-B 2.331.84 0.271.17 Sakharam Eknath Garole(Resp) Rs.53,927/-Rs. 57,595/- 371/2000 29/04/06 Rs.1,42,500/-Rs.1,17,500/- 106/2 jiKisan Bhika 8 1001/08 1.28 1.28 Rs.59,562/- 382/2000 13/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/- A- Gunjal (Resp) 9 1037/08 44/3 1.43 1.00 PandhariPundlikShejol (Resp) Rs.64,327/- 338/2000 17/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/- Abdul 10 1104/08 105 1.21 1.21 Gaffar,Abdul RajjakSheikh (Resp) Rs.62,549/ 320/2000 12/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/- 11 1105/08 8/2 3.55 3.40 HaribhauTrimbakAmbhore (Resp) Rs.58,919/- 405/2000 12/04/06 Rs.1,15,000/- 12 1106/08 95/1 4.99 4.99 AtmaramNarayanKale…..... (Resp) Rs.67,692/- 328/2000 13/04/06 Rs.1,20,000/- 13 1411/08 30/1(On-7/12)31/1 (Award) 4.862.00 2.682.00 VasantPundlikRokade (Resp) Rs.60,016/-Rs.63,079/- 434/2000 18/04/06 Rs.1,15,000/- 29/3 14 68/09 78/1 4.872.39 4.87+2.39--- BalkrishnaMadhavrao Rs.63,911/-Rs.65,348/- 365/2000 21/04/06 Rs.1,25,000/- 7.26 DhamakThruLR's ( Resp) ParvinSultanaAbdul 15 519/09 97/1A 1.35 0.39 GaffarSheikh (Resp) Rs.59,146/- 401/2000 17/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/- 16 540/09 48/248/3 2.831.20 0.520.25 VachhalabaiDnyanbaRokde (Resp) Rs.56,612/- 400/2000 25/04/06 Rs.1,27,500/-Rs.1,42,500/- 17 1401/09 77/2 2.28 0.86 PralhadShridharRokade (Resp) Rs.59,600/- 407/2000 20/04/06 Rs.1,17,500/- 3] For a dry-crop land the learned Reference Court fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.1,27,500/-and less. Only in one reference in respect of the land which was irrigated, the compensation awarded was Rs.1,42,500/-per hectare. Out of the sale instances relied upon to claim enhanced amount of compensation, the learned Reference Court relied upon only one sale instance and after adjusting the equities fixed the market value as stated above. Only in one reference in respect of the land which was irrigated, the compensation awarded was Rs.1,42,500/-per hectare. Out of the sale instances relied upon to claim enhanced amount of compensation, the learned Reference Court relied upon only one sale instance and after adjusting the equities fixed the market value as stated above. 4] Learned A G P appearing for the state contended that the evidence before the learned Reference Court was wholly insufficient to grant any enhancement in the amount of compensation. According to him there is no bar in Court taking recourse to some guess work and arriving at a reasonable amount of compensation which is required to be paid to the land owner, however, when the parties have not brought on the record any evidence, then the court will not be in a position to enhance amount of compensation merely on the basis of imagination and conjectures. The discretion of the court in applying guess work to the facts of the given case has to be reasonable and should have the nexus with the evidence produced on record, he urged. In nutshell his contention is that, learned Reference Court was not at all justified in enhancing the amount of compensation to any extent. 5] Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court. According to him, the sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court are most comparable and proximate from time angle and situation angle. He therefore, urged that no interference with the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court is warranted. 6] The points that fall for my consideration are: 1] What should be just and fair market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act? 2] To what rate of compensation the claimants are entitled to? 7] The common evidence was led before the Reference Court. A good deal of oral and documentary evidence has been adduced about the existence of fruit bearing trees, well, pipeline etc. by examining C-3 Ramchandra Shankarrao Baraskar & C-4 Bhimrao Shahajirao Patil both expert valuers. Since learned Reference Court did not enhance the compensation on these counts, and since there are no cross-appeals by the land owners, that part of the evidence has no bearing on the issues involved in these appeals. by examining C-3 Ramchandra Shankarrao Baraskar & C-4 Bhimrao Shahajirao Patil both expert valuers. Since learned Reference Court did not enhance the compensation on these counts, and since there are no cross-appeals by the land owners, that part of the evidence has no bearing on the issues involved in these appeals. 8] As regards the situation of the lands, the evidence has been adduced to the effect that the village – S'avangi Gawali is having facilities like High School, Bank, Cooperative Society, Hospitals, transport etc. In the village weekly bazar is also held. Lands acquired were having black cotton soil and very fertile. Cropping pattern is; crops like cotton, sugarcane, wheat and pulses are grown. In cross-examination it was suggested to C.W.-1 Gopaldas Khatri that the lands of the village are at a distance of 1 – 1 ½ k.m. from the river bank. In fact this is an advantage attached to his land. It points out that ground water level in the acquired land is reasonably up creating opportunity for irrigation. 9] Out of the four instances, relied upon, the Reference Court accepted only two sale instances. One sale instance has been discarded only on the ground that there was some construction on the said land. Exhibit 25 is the sale instance dated 30.3.1998. It was between Ganeshlal Gopaldas and Smt. Shobhadevi Agrawal. The land area is 40 R out of total area of 2.45 H.R. fetched value of Rs.3,00,000/-. On the said land there was kaccha construction of the area 15 x 15 ft. The learned Reference Court observed that because of existence of kaccha construction, this cannot be a comparable sale instance. The approach of the learned Reference Court prima facie appears to be incorrect. Proper value could have been assessed after deducting the value of the construction. Since it was a kaccha construction, on the area of 15 x 15 which is evident from the recitals in the sale-deed, the value can be reduced to the extent of Rs.60,000/-. Other sale instance is at exhibit 26, dated 23.4.1998. It was between RajuVyankatrao Jadhav and Gulabrao Daulat Mhalsane. The land admeasuring 40 R (one acre) fetched value of Rs.1,00,000/-. There are two other sale instances at exhibit 27 and 29 which have been discarded and rightly so by the Reference Court on the ground that they were of very small pieces of land. It was between RajuVyankatrao Jadhav and Gulabrao Daulat Mhalsane. The land admeasuring 40 R (one acre) fetched value of Rs.1,00,000/-. There are two other sale instances at exhibit 27 and 29 which have been discarded and rightly so by the Reference Court on the ground that they were of very small pieces of land. 10] It was suggested to C.W.1 Gopaldas that the sale instances relied upon by him, were money lending transaction. He denied the suggestion. This is mere suggestion lacking foundation. C.W. 2 Raju Vyankatrao Jadhao had purchased the land area 40 R for Rs.1,00,000/-on 23.4.1998 vide sale deed exhibit 26. He deposed to the effect that distance between the lands acquired and the lands covered under sale deed is just 2.5 k.m. According to him, the land was purchased by him as per the market value. Similar suggestion was given to him that the sale deed was an outcome of money lending transaction. This is again a bare suggestion. Neither to C.W.1 Gopaldas nor to this witness it was suggested that the vendees of these sale deeds [exhibit 25 and 26] are doing money lending business and that vendors at any point of time were indebted to them. In that view of the matter, both these sale transactions are comparable sale instances. For the reason that they are post-notification sale instances learned Reference Court reduced the market value proportionately of the acquired land although, it is evident from these sale instances that market value of one acre agricultural land was Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Reference Court reduced it by half and only awarded Rs.51,000/-per acre. Therefore, no fault can be found with these findings reached by the learned Reference Court. 11] As regards admissibility of the post-notification sale instances reference can be made to the decision in case of Chindha Vithal Sonwane..vs.. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported 1975 Mh.L.J. 469 wherein it is held: “There is no general rule that when considering sale instances post notification transactions are to be ignored altogether. Section 23 and Section 24 Land Acquisition Act do not prohibit post notification sales from being taken into consideration while determining market value. The distance of time by which a particular transaction is divorced from the date of relevant notification will have a bearing on the probative value and impact of the transaction. It must generally depend upon the purpose of acquisition. The distance of time by which a particular transaction is divorced from the date of relevant notification will have a bearing on the probative value and impact of the transaction. It must generally depend upon the purpose of acquisition. The question whether a particular transaction though post notification one3 is relevant and can afford a guide for determining the fair market value as on the date of notification will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Just as a transaction effected long before the date of notification will be of no value, similarly transactions long after notification will have to be ruled out. But merely because a transaction is effected two or three years after the date of notification it cannot be rejected as irrelevant.” 12] In case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas..vs.. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1988 SC 1652 while laying down parameters relevant for determining market value of the land their Lordships observed as under: “(4)-Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of Land). (5)-Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. ” 13] There is no evidence, or even a bare suggestion to the witnesses on behalf of the land owners that the prices were deliberately hiked to claim compensation. 14] For the aforestated reasons I do not find any substance in these appeals. Same are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.