Judgment : 1. Admit. 2. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both the sides for final disposal. 3. All the appeals are filed against common judgment and award of the Land Acquisition References filed by the respondents-claimants and which were pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The Reference Court has allowed the Land Acquisition Reference Nos.45/2004 to 49/2004 (Old Nos.247/2004 to 251/2004) and has enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,500/- per hector to Rs.16.5 lakh per hector. Other consequential reliefs are also given. Common evidence was given by the claimants in the aforesaid five proceedings. 4. The claimants were owners of different portions of land Gat No.67/1 situated at Ghulewadi, Taluka Sangamner. The portion of 11.5 R of claimants from LAR No.45/2004 is acquired. The portion of 7 R of the claimants from LAR No.46/2004 is acquired. The portion of 34 R of the claimants from LAR No.47/2004 is acquired. The portion of 8 R of the claimants from LAR No.48/2004 is acquired and the portion of 17 R of the claimants from LAR No.49/2004 is acquired. The land is acquired for expansion of area of Industrial Development Corporation. It was established there about 30 years prior to the date of notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, "the Act'). This land is situated at a distance of 1.5 km from Pune - Nashik highway. The land was jirayat land and in four cases the portions were already converted for Non Agricultural use. 5. The lands under acquisition were classified on the basis of revenue into four groups of Jirayat land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the SLAO") considered the sale instances, the evidence collected from the office of Talathi. After receiving the notice, objections were taken by the claimants to the acquisition and they had contended that the price of the land per acre was around 9 to 10 lakhs rupees (around Rs.22.5 to 25 lakh per hector). The SLAO considered the sale instances produced before him. Some sale instances were rejected by the SLAO as they were of very small area and there was huge difference in prices. The SLAO held that Gat No.67/1 was Jirayat land and market price per hector was fixed at Rs.1.18 lakhs. There were no trees, no well, no constructions in these portions. Some sale instances were rejected by the SLAO as they were of very small area and there was huge difference in prices. The SLAO held that Gat No.67/1 was Jirayat land and market price per hector was fixed at Rs.1.18 lakhs. There were no trees, no well, no constructions in these portions. Portion of 0.54 R was found Pot kharaba, of no use and for it the price was fixed per hector as Rs.1500/-. 6. The acquiring body filed Written Statement and denied the contentions of the claimants that price per hector was Rs.22.5 to 25 lakhs at the relevant time. On behalf of the claimants, claimant Dattatraya Damodhar Pabalkar was examined. The Manager of the Industrial Development Corporation namely Kashinath Kundlik Dongare was examined by the acquiring body. The revenue map of village Ghulewadi was produced on the record. The claimants produced copies of sale deeds on which they wanted to rely. The acquiring body produced index extracts in respect of sale instances. 7. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 25-11-1999. The Reference Court has placed reliance on the sale instance described in Exhibit 30 dated 24-2-1998. On the basis of this sale instance the price per R is fixed as Rs.15,000/-. The Reference Court has given increase of 10% in the price for one year as the notification under section 4 was published after about one year of this sale instance and thus the market price at the relevant time is fixed at Rs.16,500/- per R. 8. As per the record, there is substantive evidence of one of the claimants at Exhibit 23. It is to the effect that these claimants had purchased the portions, which are acquired for the commercial purpose, under various sale deeds from the year 1997. The portion of 7 R from LAR No.46/2004 was purchased by the said claimants on 3-11-1997 for the consideration of Rs.80,000/- under sale deed at Exhibit 36. The portion of 34 R was purchased by the claimants from LAR No.47/2004 for the consideration of Rs.2.75 lakhs under sale deed Exhibit 38. The portion of 7 R from LAR No.46/2004 was purchased by the said claimants on 3-11-1997 for the consideration of Rs.80,000/- under sale deed at Exhibit 36. The portion of 34 R was purchased by the claimants from LAR No.47/2004 for the consideration of Rs.2.75 lakhs under sale deed Exhibit 38. The portion of 8 R from LAR No.48/2004 was purchased by the claimants from the said proceeding on 3-2-1998 for the consideration of Rs.91,000/- and portion of 17 R from LAR No.49/2004 was purchased by the claimants from the said proceeding under sale deed at Exhibit 35 dated 16-10- 1997 for the consideration of Rs. one lakh. In these sale instances it is mentioned that all these portions were already converted for Non Agriculture use. However, the record like NA order was not produced to show the date on which the application was made. The evidence is given that these claimants wanted to use the aforesaid portions for commercial purpose and so they had purchased those portions. The portion of 11.5 R from LAR No.45/2004 was purchased by the claimants of that proceeding under sale instance at Exhibit 34 for the consideration of Rs.75000/- on 16-10-1997. This portion of land was not converted to NA use but the claimants gave oral evidence that they had applied for such conversion. 9. As per the record, which was available before the Reference Court and which includes the award delivered by the SLAO, the acquiring body had sent the proposal in the year 1999 for taking steps for acquisition of the lands and the SLAO was appointed and further procedure was followed. The aforesaid sale-deeds under which the claimants had purchased the acquired portions and the award show that exactly the same portions which came to be acquired, were purchased by the claimants under the aforesaid sale deeds. There are maps of the portions which were purchased by the claimants and they show that specific portion which was to be acquired for aforesaid project was purchased even when the vendors were having more portion in the same number. These circumstances lead to only one inference that the purchasers/claimants knew the exact portions for which there was the proposal of acquisition. Two of the aforesaid sale deeds were of 16-10-1997. These circumstances lead to only one inference that the purchasers/claimants knew the exact portions for which there was the proposal of acquisition. Two of the aforesaid sale deeds were of 16-10-1997. These circumstances cannot be ignored by the Reference Court as only bona fide sale instances are required to be used for fixing the market price. 10. At Exhibit 33 there is another sale instance of portion of 47 R which is part of Survey No.67/2 from the same village and it is dated 25-6-2009. This portion was shown to be sold for the consideration of Rs.20.11 lakhs. The Award shows that this portion was acquired for the same project and so this transaction also cannot be treated as a bona fide transaction. 11. The sale deed at Exhibit 30 used for fixing the market price by the Reference Court was executed on 24- 2-1998. The purchaser was a partnership firm of which Tukaram Patilba Shinde was the partner and he was also vendor of the property. It was jirayat land not converted for NA use. It was not having any facility of irrigation, well or any construction on it. It was part of Survey No.64. Between Survey No.64 and the public road there is survey No.63 as per the map available on the record. And the portion of 20 R was sold for a consideration of Rs.3 lakhs (approximate Rs.15000/- per R). Considering the date of transaction of Exhibit 30 and the aforesaid circumstances like the transactions of two of the claimants dated 16-10- 1997 it is not possible to accept the transaction in Exhibit 30 as a bona fide transaction. Further, the vendor and purchaser were almost the same in Exhibit 30. For getting many benefits such transactions are made and the possibility that in anticipation of the acquisition of adjacent lands such transaction was made also cannot be ruled out. 12. There is one more sale instance mentioned in Exhibit 31 which is in respect of 10 R portion from Survey No.257/2K (Old No.389) dated 26-8-1996. This land is not situated in the vicinity of the land acquired, but it was converted to Non Agriculture use. The consideration is shown as Rs.1.85 lakhs. It was within village panchayat residential area. 13. There is one more sale instance mentioned in Exhibit 31 which is in respect of 10 R portion from Survey No.257/2K (Old No.389) dated 26-8-1996. This land is not situated in the vicinity of the land acquired, but it was converted to Non Agriculture use. The consideration is shown as Rs.1.85 lakhs. It was within village panchayat residential area. 13. The two sale instances mentioned in Exhibit 37 and Exhibit 38 show that one Bharatkumar Tehalram Nihalani purchased 8 R portion for consideration of Rs.91,000/- under the transaction dated 3-2-1998 and under sale deed at Exhibit 38 his father and uncles had purchased 34 R portion on 5-1-1998 for consideration of Rs.2.75 lakhs. Thus within one month the same family gave higher rate of Rs.2000/- per R. Such circumstances also cannot be ignored as such transactions create probability that by misusing the information, the claimants were purchasing the property and were creating some false record. The aforesaid sale instances in respect of the property actually acquired show that those portions were purchased by the claimants for consideration which was between R.5,500/- per R and Rs.10,000/- per R. 14. The portions acquired were purchased by the claimants within two years prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. They were purchased at different rates even by the same family. These circumstances have created a clear probability that even the price, consideration shown in the aforesaid transactions by the claimants was not actually given. They cannot be called as bona fide transactions. Apparently these are the cases of fraud and false price is shown. It is unfortunate that the Reference Court did not notice the aforesaid circumstances. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant, acquiring body, has placed reliance on some reported cases like - AIR 2011 SC 54 (Radha Mudaliyar v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T.N.H. Board) and (2013) 11 SCC 426 (Salah Begum v. Land Acquisition Officer). It is unfortunate that the Reference Court did not notice the aforesaid circumstances. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant, acquiring body, has placed reliance on some reported cases like - AIR 2011 SC 54 (Radha Mudaliyar v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T.N.H. Board) and (2013) 11 SCC 426 (Salah Begum v. Land Acquisition Officer). On the other hand, learned counsel for the original claimants/respondents has placed reliance on some reported cases like (1) 2012 SAR (Civil) 441 Supreme Court (Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab); (2) 2012(2) Mh.L.J. 530 (Chindha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer); (3) AIR 2001 SC 1117 (Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah); and, (4) Judgment dated 22nd June 2009 delivered by Division Bench of Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.182 of 1996 and connected matters. The learned counsel for the original claimants also placed reliance on Government Resolution dated 31st October 1994 issued by the State Government laying down the procedure which needs to be followed for land acquisition. 16. In the case of Salaha (cited supra) the Apex Court has discussed the use of comparative sale method for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act. It cannot be disputed that ordinarily the sale instances of identically situated lands need to be considered and the sale instance of higher value needs to be used for determining the market price on the relevant date. Considering the object behind this interpretation, when the land acquired was itself purchased by the claimants recently, within five years prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, the price quoted in that sale deed also cannot be ignored by the Reference Court provided that it was a bona fide transaction. If in a case like the present one, there is clear probability that after learning about the proposal of the acquisition, the land was purchased by the claimants, even that sale instance cannot be used for determining the market price. In the present case, even if it is presumed that the transactions of the claimants were bona fide, in that case by giving 10% increase the Reference Court could have fixed the market price of the respective portions. In the present case, even if it is presumed that the transactions of the claimants were bona fide, in that case by giving 10% increase the Reference Court could have fixed the market price of the respective portions. Even when there were such circumstances, the Reference Court ignored those circumstances and fixed marked price at the rate of Rs.15000/- per R on the basis of the sale instance of different land and when that transaction cannot be called as bona fide transaction. Thus, the Reference Court has committed a grave error in fixing the market price and using the exemplar from the sale instance of different property when the circumstance of sale of the same property within relevant period was available. 17. In the case of V. Narasaiah (cited supra) the Apex Court has ruled that while fixing the market value of the acquired land under section 23 of the Act, certified copy of sale instance of similar land situated in the vicinity can be relied upon by the Reference Court and for that, examination of Vendor, or Vendee or other persons connected with the same is not necessary. The Apex Court has considered the provision of Section 51-A of the Act and has discussed the purpose behind it. It is observed that the parties face practical difficulties to prove such transactions and discretion is given to the Court to use certified copy of the sale transaction in evidence. The Apex Court has, however, made it clear that there is no compulsion in this regard and there is discretionary power with the Court. It is further observed that merely accepting of such evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat the transaction as reliable evidence. If the Court admits such document in evidence, that does not prevent the parties to substantiate their respective cases by adducing evidence. This provision and the aforesaid interpretation need to be kept in mind while considering the cases like the present one. 18. It is true that the Reference Court is the Court of original jurisdiction and both the sides are expected to lead evidence to substantiate their respective cases. This provision and the aforesaid interpretation need to be kept in mind while considering the cases like the present one. 18. It is true that the Reference Court is the Court of original jurisdiction and both the sides are expected to lead evidence to substantiate their respective cases. In view of the provisions of Sections, 18, 23, 25 and 51-A of the Act it can be said that when the matter is refereed to the Reference Court by the authority, the authority, the SLAO, must send not only the material produced along with the application by the claimants but also the material which was considered by him for fixing the market price. This is because he is referring the matter to the Reference Court for considering the grievance of the claimant. It is noticed that the officers of the State / acquiring body are not that vigilant and they do not show interest and initiative even to produce the record of sale instances which was before the SLAOs. Due to such approach of the officers, the Reference Courts are misled most of the times. In view of the purpose behind the procedure given in the aforesaid provisions, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the Reference Court is expected to go through the material which formed basis for fixing the market price by the SLAO. If that procedure is followed, possible mistakes like the present one committed by the Reference Court can be minimised. After all it is public money and from that angle also the Reference Court is expected to consider the relevant material which was available before the SLAOs. 19. In the case reported as (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC) (M. Vijaylakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras) (this case is referred in the case reported as 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 530 by the Apex Court) it is laid down that the sale instances should be bona fide transactions. When there are strong circumstances like found in the present case, the Reference Court can refuse to use the sale instances of highest value for fixing market price. 20. In view of the discussion made above, this Court holds that interference is warranted in the decision given by the Reference Court and the matters need to be remanded back for fresh consideration. In the result, following order :-- 21. 20. In view of the discussion made above, this Court holds that interference is warranted in the decision given by the Reference Court and the matters need to be remanded back for fresh consideration. In the result, following order :-- 21. All the appeals are partly allowed with no order as to cost. The judgment and award delivered by the Reference Court in all the Land Acquisition References is hereby set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh consideration. The parties to appear before the Reference Court on 11th August 2014. The Reference Court is to decide the matters afresh within three months thereafter. The record & proceeding be sent back forthwith to the Reference Court.