FA 938/05 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2005 RIDDHIDEVI ARVINDSING PARIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.D. Kasliwal AGP for Respondents: Mr. B.A. Shinde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 17, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1981, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment and award dated 31.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in LAR No. 217/1984. 3. The land of the claimant admeasuring 1 H. 24 R. out of total area 13 H. 52 R. of land from Block No. 187 situated at village Bhone Bk., Tal. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon was acquired for implementation of extension of Gavthan scheme. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.8.1981 and was published on 8.10.1981. Declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 20.5.1982 and was published on 17.6.1982. Possession of the land was taken over ton 28.3.1983. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on 4.2.1983 and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per H. along with statutory benefits. Feeling inadequate compensation granted by SLAO, the appellant/claimant filed reference under section 18 of the Act. The reference 2026:BHC-AUG:37373 FA 938/05 2 court, after considering and examining the evidence on record, has rejected the reference. Hence, present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant submits that before the reference court, the claimant relied upon the sale instance at Exh. 101 dated 17.5.1985, however, the learned reference court wrongly held that the said sale instance was executed after publication of section 4 notification and cannot be considered as comparable sale instance and has rejected the reference. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the learned reference court has not considered the evidence on record in its proper perspective and prayed to allow the appeal. 5. The learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and award of the reference court by submitting that the reference court has rightly not relied upon the sale instance relied upon by the claimant which was executed after the section 4 notification and prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment and award of the learned reference court. On perusal of the same, it is seen that before the reference court the claimants relied upon the sale instance, which was executed after section 4 notification, therefore, the reference court has held that such sale instance cannot be considered as comparable sale instance and rightly dismissed the reference. In view of the above, I find that the reference court has not committed any error while deciding the reference. The present appeals is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/