JUDGMENT : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. 1 Heard the learned Advocates for respective parties. 2 The first appeal has been filed by the CIDCO against the judgment and award dated 12 th June, 2008, passed by the learned Reference Court, District Aurangabad, in LAR No.680 of 1997, whereas the cross-objection has been preferred by the original claimants, stating that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants. 3 The claimants’ lands bearing block No.59/6, admeasuring 42 R, and block No.59/5/2, admeasuring 82 R, were acquired for the purpose of expansion of Chikalthana Airport, as per the notification issued and published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, “the said Act”) read with Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short “MRTP Act”) dated 17 th December, 1992. 4 Mr. Girish Awale, learned Advocate for appellant/CIDCO pointed out the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections raised in the appeal, and the reasons in the impugned judgment. He submitted that an exorbitant amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned Reference Court and the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37 was wrongly relied upon. It is submitted that the evidence was not properly appreciated. He submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award, as well as to dismiss the cross-objection filed by the claimants. 5 Ms. Sakshi Kale, learned Advocate for the claimants / cross-objector submitted that the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37, which is a bona-fide and comparable sale exemplar, was not fully relied upon by the learned Reference Court. The claimants’ land was acquired for the purpose of expansion of the Airport at Aurangabad. It was acquired for a commercial purpose, having N.A. potentiality as held in the award of the LAO. She further submitted that merely because the acquired land does not have N.A. permission, the benefits of non- agricultural potentials cannot be denied. It is submitted to dismiss the appeal filed by the CIDCO and allow the cross-objection filed by the claimants. 6 The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the following authorities:- a. Digamber and others Vs. She further submitted that merely because the acquired land does not have N.A. permission, the benefits of non- agricultural potentials cannot be denied. It is submitted to dismiss the appeal filed by the CIDCO and allow the cross-objection filed by the claimants. 6 The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the following authorities:- a. Digamber and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 406 , in which it is held that the Land Acquisition Officer should keep in mind while fixing the market value of the acquired land, (i) existing geographical situation of the land, (ii) existing use of the land, (iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area, and (iv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.” b. Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam , (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 506, in which the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.11 and 13 held as under:- “ 11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. 13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land.” c. The Municipal Council, Ausa, Through its Chief Officer Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , (First Appeal No.304 of 2000) dated 27 th February, 2009, in which this Court held that deduction should be reasonable for the development charges that should be normally 1/3 rd. 7 Nobody will dispute the ratio and the law laid down in the above authorities. However, it is well settled that each case has to be decided on its own merits and decisive are the facts of the case. 8 Perused the record and proceedings, particularly, the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37, which was executed on 13 th June, 1991, for a consideration of Rs.18,000/- for an area of 800 square feet, out of block No.559, situated at Chikalthana, Aurangabad. 8 Perused the record and proceedings, particularly, the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37, which was executed on 13 th June, 1991, for a consideration of Rs.18,000/- for an area of 800 square feet, out of block No.559, situated at Chikalthana, Aurangabad. The land of the claimants was acquired as per the notification issued under Section 6 of the said Act read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act, dated 17 th December, 1992 and published in the Official Gazette on 22 nd August, 1991. Therefore, the sale exemplar of land situated in one and the same area is certainly a bona-fide and comparable sale exemplar, which can be safely relied upon. The learned Reference Court in paragraph No.18 of the impugned judgment held that the claimants’ land has N.A. potentiality, situated near city of Aurangabad. The said fact is not disputed by the appellant / CIDCO. In view of the above, this Court held that the claimants’ land has N.A. potentiality. 9 As per the said sale exemplar, the compensation @ Rs.24,493/- per R must be awarded as it is market value of said acquired land. The area of the acquired land is 1 H 24 R. Considering 800 square feet area i.e. less than 1 R land in the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37 and that claimants’ acquired land is 1 H 24 R, it would be just and proper if 40% the amount is deducted for the smaller size of the land under the said sale exemplar and big chunk of the acquired land of the claimants. After deduction of 40%, the amounts comes to Rs.14695.8/- per R. 10 The notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 17 th December, 1992, and the sale deed is executed on 13 th June, 1991. For that one and a half years period, if a 12% escalation in price value of land is awarded, then that amount comes to Rs.16459.29 per R, which is market value of the acquired land of the claimants on the day of issuance of notification under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act. 11 The learned counsel for the claimants pointed out the final award passed by LAO dated 15 th December, 1994, particularly page No.13. 11 The learned counsel for the claimants pointed out the final award passed by LAO dated 15 th December, 1994, particularly page No.13. In last three lines in second last paragraph, it is observed that, the difference between the rate awarded by the sale statistics method and that of the ready reckoner rate shall be dealt with separately in a new file as an ex-gratia proposal as per Government Resolution dated 31 st October, 1994 part III-A. The Land Acquisition Manual provides for the said ex-gratia payment and forwarding of the proposal. It is submitted to allow the claimants to move an application before the concerned authority for that purpose i.e. ex-gratia proposal. The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for the appellant / CIDCO opposed the said prayer. If the relief of rehabilitation is not given separately, then the claimants are entitled to a certain amount under the caption of the “ex-gratia” for the same. The claimants are entitled to apply for the compensation under the caption of “ex-gratia” proposal. 12 Considering all the above reasons, there is no substance in the grounds of objections in the appeal filed by CIDCO. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the claimants deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside. Hence, the following order:- ORDER I. The first appeal filed by the CIDCO is dismissed. II. The cross-objection filed by claimants is partly allowed. III. The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and modified as under:- a) The claimants are entitled for the compensation @ Rs.16459.29 per R, alongwith statutory benefits i.e. solatium, interest and components as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. b) The amount already awarded by the learned Reference Court be adjusted accordingly. c) Rest of the judgment and award is confirmed. d) Award be drawn up as per the above modification. IV. It is clarified that if delay has been condoned by this Court while entertaining the cross-objection, the claimants shall not be entitled to statutory interest for the said period of delay. V. The appellant / CIDCO is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith statutory benefits, in this Court within a period of six months from today. VI. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fees, if any. V. The appellant / CIDCO is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith statutory benefits, in this Court within a period of six months from today. VI. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fees, if any. On deposit of deficit court fees, the amount of compensation be paid to claimants. VII. The claimants are at liberty to file an application as per the final award of LAO, held in second last paragraph at page No.13, to file an application before the Collector or the competent authority for ex-gratia compensation as per the Government Resolution 31 st October, 1994, for establishing the difference between the rate awarded by sale statistics method and that of ready reckoner rate. VIII. The solvent security / surety furnished at the time of withdrawal of amount by the claimants, stands discharged. IX. Pending civil applications, if any, is disposed of. X. Record and proceedings be sent back.