906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 693 OF 2003 State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Vasudeo Tukaram Patil ... Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Appellant-State Mr. C. V. Borse h/for Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2003 State Of Maha VERSUS Vimalbai Nimba Koli … Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Appellant-State Mr. C. V. Borse h/for Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2003 State Of Maha VERSUS Narayan Pralhad Patil … Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Appellant-State Mr. C. V. Borse h/for Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 17.02.2026 ORDER :- 1. These appeals are preferred by the State Government against the common judgment and award dated 03.05.2002 passed by the learned Land Reference Court Amalner, District Jalgoan in L.A.R. Nos.286 of 1993, 290 of 1993 and 647 of 1993 respectively. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:7254 (( 2 )) 906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003 2. The following chart reflects all the material particulars of the appeals. First Appeal Nos. L.A.R. Nos. Block No. Area Compensation awarded by LAO Compensation awarded by Reference Court FA/ 693/20 03 286/1993 120 77 Are 291/- per Are 2,622/- per Are for irrigated land and 1,311/- per Are for non-irrigated land FA/ 691/20 03 290/1993 207 209 18 Are 56 Are 291/- Per Are 2,622/- per Are for irrigated land and 1,311/- per Are for non-irrigated land FA/ 692/20 03 647/1993 117 75 Are 275/- per Are 2,622/- per Are for irrigated land and 1,311/- per Are for non-irrigated land 3. Learned AGP for the Appellant-State pointed out the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections of the appeals and the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court. He submitted that the land of the claimants was acquired by the State Government for the construction of the Kurwel Distributary of the Hatnur Irrigation Project, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court failed to consider the entire evidence on record and awarded an excessive amount of compensation. He submitted that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the 2 of 4 (( 3 )) 906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 29.06.1989, is not based on the evidence on record. Therefore, he prayed to allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 4. Learned advocate for the respondents–claimants strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the learned Reference Court considered the highest sale exemplar at Exhibit-36 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,311/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.2,622/- per Are for irrigated land. He further submitted that the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and correct and no interference is warranted therein. He prayed to dismiss the appeals. 5. Perused the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections raised in the appeals and the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court, in paragraph No.23, relied upon the sale exemplar at Exhibit-36, which is the sale exemplar of the highest value, and held that it is genuine and adjacent to the lands of the claimants while answering Issue No.1. The nature of the land, whether irrigated or non-irrigated, was also determined by the learned Reference Court on the basis of the 7/12 3 of 4 (( 4 )) 906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003 extracts. Thus, on the basis of a comparable sale exemplar, the learned Reference Court has rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and award. The appeals deserve to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. ::ORDER:: a. The First Appeals are dismissed. b. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of. c. No order as to costs. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 4 of 4