4-fa-369-99.doc Urmila Ingale IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.369 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Champabai Amrutlal Thakkar and ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. A.R. Patil, Addl. GP for Appellant.  None for the Respondent. ................... CORAM : S.M.MODAK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Patil, learned Addl. GP for Appellant. None is present on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has offered a rate of Rs.73/- per square meter as per his Award dated 30th July 1983. Whereas, the Reference Court i.e. the Court of Joint District Judge, Nashik in a Land Reference No. 65 of 1984 made at the instance of the Claimant has enhanced the rate to Rs.300/- per square meter. This Award is challenged by State by way of present Appeal. Learned Add.GP has taken me through the contents of the Judgment. According to him, when the Reference 1 of 4 4-fa-369-99.doc Court has not accepted the documents to prove the sale deed of contemporary period and when the Reference Court has not accepted the evidence of Valuer, he ought not to have enhanced the rate to Rs. 300/- per square meter. 3. It is true that the land is notified as per provisions of Section 6 of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act on 30th July 1981. It is for the purpose of extension of municipal school building at Nashik. It has come in the evidence that there is encroachment by way of huts on the acquired land. The City Survey number of land is 5865/14-A and it is situated in Panchavati area of Nashik town. 4. The Claimants have given the evidence through the Claimant Dilip Thakkar and Architect-cum-Valuer Mr. Jayant Wabhari. The Claimant placed reliance on the sale deeds at Exhibits 62 & 63. However, they were not certified copies but the photo copies. The Reference Court has rightly refused to consider them as they do not satisfy the test laid down as per the provisions of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court has refused to consider the rate of Rs.554/- per square meter as determined by the Valuer. The Valuer had 2 of 4 4-fa-369-99.doc visited the CTS No. 5865/14-A and he had gone through the Index II maintained in the office of Sub-Registrar and that is how calculated the average. This is not accepted by the Reference Court. 5. At the same time, the Reference Court has opined that the acquired land is having non-agricultural potentiality because the Claimants have submitted a plan for development, however, they have not started with the construction. The Reference Court was fully conscious of deduction towards the development charges. One third of the land will be consumed for keeping open space and internal road. That is why the Reference Court opined that the rate submitted by the Valuer at Rs. 544/- is on the higher side. After appreciating the evidence, the Reference Court opined that the rate offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is on the lower side and enhanced it to Rs.300/- per square meter. This was done primarily for the reason that the land has got high non-agricultural potentiality. 6. If this matter is considered, this Court feels that the rate enhanced by the Reference Court is on proper appreciation of evidence. The Claimants need to be granted rate which they will 3 of 4 4-fa-369-99.doc fetch if the land is sold in the open market and when the prospective purchaser will offer the rate. This Court feels that there is no error in enhancement order by the Reference Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. [ S.M.MODAK, J. ] 4 of 4