1 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 4403 OF 2016 CHHABUBAI KARBHARI THORAT SINCE DECEASED, THROUGH LRS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Respondent-State. … AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 4404 OF 2016 KARBHARI SHAMRAO THORAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 4405 OF 2016 HAUSABAI MOHAN THORAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 4406 OF 2016 UTTAM SHAMRAO THORAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 4407 OF 2016 MOHAN SHAMRAO THORAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:27164 2 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeals, the original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed in LAR Nos.369/2011, 371/2011, 375/2011, 370/2011 and 372/2011, whereby the Reference Court partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation to Rs.1050/- per R, though the claimants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per R. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Shinde appearing for the appellants submits that, in order to establish that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, the claimants adduced sufficient evidence by placing on record three sale instances at Exhibits 14, 15 and 16. He submits that, insofar as Exhibit-14 is concerned, the Reference Court itself observed that the market value of the land reflected from the said sale instance comes to Rs.2142/- per R. Whereas from sale instance below Exhibit-16, it reflects that the market value of the land therein comes to Rs.1342/- per R. The learned Reference Court by taking into consideration the average of both these market values reach to the conclusion that compensation for the acquired land be paid @ of Rs.1700/- per R. By deducting the 3 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003 compensation already granted by SLAO, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.1050/- per R. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred by considering the average of both the sale deeds. The learned Reference Court ought to have considered the sale instance which had higher market value i.e. Exhibit-14. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr. R. B. Dhaware, learned AGP for the State strongly opposed the prayer for enhancement of compensation. He submits that both the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. According to him, the Reference Court rightly granted compensation @ of average of both the sale instances. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is evident that the Claimants relied upon three sale instances at Exhibits 14, 15 and 16. There is no dispute that all the said sale instances are prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It further appears that the learned Reference Court relied upon the average market value in both the sale instances. The learned Reference Court had no reason to rely on the average of market values of both the sale instances. The Reference Court was required to consider the cumulative effect of all the sale instances 4 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003 available on record. 6. It is significant to note that the Reference Court itself recorded a finding that the market value reflected from Exhibit-14 worked out to Rs.2142/- per R. In such circumstances, the said sale instance could not have been ignored altogether. Considering the overall evidence available on record and the cumulative effect of all the sale instances, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per R for the acquired land. 7. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The appeals are allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed in LAR Nos.369/2011, 371/2011, 375/2011, 370/2011 and 372/2011 are modified. (iii) It is held that the claimants/appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per R for the acquired land and Clause 2 of operative part of the order passed by the learned Reference Court stands modified to that extent. 5 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003 (iv) Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court stands confirmed. (v) The amount of compensation granted by Reference Court be adjusted from the amount of enhanced compensation granted by this Court. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef