1 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 2007 THE STATE OF MAHA. THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD VERSUS UTTAM VISHWAMBAR DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER ... Mr. A.A.A. Khan, AGP for the Appellant-State. Mr. Vitthal Gena Mete, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is Absent. ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2007 THE STATE OF MAHA. THROUGH COLLEOCTOR, O`BAD VERSUS VISHWANATH BHAIRU KASAPATE … Mr. A.A.A. Khan, AGP for the Appellant-State. Mr. Vitthal Gena Mete, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is Absent. … AND 913 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1051 OF 2007 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO.COLLECTOR. VERSUS SADHU BAJI PAWAR (L.RS.) SHABAI AND OTHERS. ... Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Appellant-State. Mr. N. P. Jamalpurkar Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1a to 1d is Absent. … AND 45 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2007 THE STATE OF MAHA THROUGH COLLECTOR,OSMANABAD VERSUS VILAS MAHADEOAPPA GARDE ... Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellant-State. Mr. V. G. Mete, Advocate for Respondent is Absent. ... 2026:BHC-AUG:31224 2 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45 CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1982 and 1985, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned AGPs for the State. 2. By the present appeals, the Appellants-State is aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 30.03.1994, 29.04.1994, 30.03.1994 and 30.03.1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR Nos.658/1991, 342/1990, 661/1991 and 667/1991. 3. In all these appeals, the lands of the Claimants were acquired for the Ruibhar Medium Project. For the said project, lands situated in different villages were acquired and, consequently, different notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued. However, since the acquisition pertains to the same project, all these appeals are taken up for hearing together. The relevant particulars are as follows: Sr. No. First Appeal No. Notification under Section 4 dated Notification under Section 6 dated SLAO has awarded compensation on 1 FA.1044.2007 02.12.1982 16.10.1985 26.11.1987 2 FA.1051.2007 31.12.1985 - 31.12.1987 3 FA.1045.2007 02.12.1982 16.10.1985 26.11.1987 4 FA.1159.2007 02.12.1982 27.06.1985 26.11.1987 3 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45 4. Mr. A.A.A. Khan, Mr. D.R. Korde and Mr. A.D. Wange, learned AGPs appearing for the Appellant–State, vehemently submitted that the learned Reference Court erred in relying upon the sale deed dated 02.07.1982. According to them, the said sale instance pertains to land situated within or adjacent to the municipal limits of Osmanabad city, whereas the acquired lands are situated outside the municipal limits and at a considerable distance from the city. Therefore, the said sale instance could not have been treated as a comparable sale instance. They further submitted that separate compensation had already been awarded for the well and pipeline. It is also submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation ranging from Rs.122/- to Rs.185/- per R, whereas the learned Reference Court, relying upon the sale deed dated 02.07.1982, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,000/- per R in some references and Rs.875/- per R in others. According to the learned AGPs, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is excessive and unsustainable. 5. Mr. Khan, learned AGP, lastly submitted that the land covered by the sale deed dated 02.07.1982 was situated adjacent to the MIDC area and, therefore, commanded a higher market value. According to him, the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the said sale instance. However, no other contemporaneous sale instance from the vicinity of the acquired lands was brought on record. Though 4 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45 an attempt was made to point out certain other sale instances, those transactions had taken place nearly six years after the publication of the notification under Section 4 and, therefore, they could not have been treated as comparable sale instances. In the absence of any better contemporaneous evidence, I find no error in the approach adopted by the learned Reference Court in relying upon the sale deed dated 02.07.1982. 6. Though served, none appears for the Respondents. 7. I have heard the learned AGPs for the Appellant–State. With their assistance, I have carefully gone through the record and proceedings as well as the map showing the location of the project. There is no dispute that, for the Ruibhar Medium Project, lands from adjoining villages such as Paraswadi, Devlai and other villages were acquired by issuing different notifications under Section 4, since the acquisition was undertaken in phases. 8. It is also required to be borne in mind that the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1982. At the relevant time, landowners were generally reluctant to sell their agricultural lands, particularly when acquisition proceedings had already commenced. Consequently, comparable sale instances from the same village or adjoining villages were not readily available. In such circumstances, the Claimants relied upon the sale deed dated 02.07.1982, relating to land 5 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45 situated within the municipal limits. Considering the absence of any better comparable sale instance, the learned Reference Court relied upon the said sale deed after making appropriate adjustments. 9. It is further evident that the acquired lands were irrigated lands. It is a matter of common experience that landowners were reluctant to part with their irrigated agricultural lands for public purposes, particularly when the compensation initially offered was meagre. Since the Land Acquisition Act is a beneficial legislation intended to ensure payment of just and fair compensation, I find that the learned Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 02.07.1982. 10. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and well-considered approach while determining the market value of the acquired lands. I do not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and awards warranting interference in these appeals. 11. Hence, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef