Dilwale 1 17-FA-1419-07.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 17 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1419 OF 2007 Gulabsing Bhimsing Rajput VERSUS State Of Maharashtra WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1421 OF 2007 Fulrajbai Durgasingh Thakur VERSUS State Of Maharashtra WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1422 OF 2007 Rajwantibai Surendersing Thakur VERSUS State Of Maharashtra WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1420 OF 2007 Ashabai Surendersingh Thakur VERSUS State Of Maharashtra ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. A. R. Rathod AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. N. Morampalle ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 11.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1987, the appeals are being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By these appeals, the appellants/original claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.10.2000 passed by the learned Civil 2026:BHC-AUG:36995 Dilwale 2 17-FA-1419-07.odt Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in LAR Nos. 230/1997, 880/1996, 227/1997 and 234/1997, whereby the learned Reference Court dismissed their references. 3. The lands of the claimants were acquired for construction of Percolation Tank at village Nanda, Tq. Soyegaon, Dist. Aurangabad. Section 4 was published in the Government Gazette on 01.01.1987, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.05.1989, award under Section 11 was passed on 27.10.2004 and Notice under Section 12(2) was given to the claimants on 30.01.1992. The LAO granted compensation @ Rs.200/- per R for Group No. I and Rs.220/- per R for Group No. II by treating the acquired lands as dry lands. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants submits that the claimants' lands were irrigated lands, but the SLAO and the Reference Court treated the lands as dry lands. He submits that the learned Reference Court granted very meagre compensation. Even in the acquired lands, there were fruit-bearing trees, but no compensation was awarded for the fruit-bearing trees. The claimants relied upon the sale instance from Gat No. 73, whereby 1 Acre Bagayat land was sold for Rs.10,000/- (Rs.250/- per R). The claimants examined the vendor of the sale deed, who specifically stated that 1 Acre of Bagayat land was sold for Rs.20,000/-, but only to pay lesser stamp duty, a lesser consideration was shown. Therefore, he submits that, considering the sale instance, the acquired land ought to have treated as irrigated land. However, the Dilwale 3 17-FA-1419-07.odt Reference Court treated the acquired land as dry land. He, therefore, prays to allow the appeals. 5. Per contra, the learned AGP, Mr. Morampalle, supports the order passed by the learned Reference Court and contends that the market value has been rightly determined by the SLAO. He submits that the testimony of vendor of sale instance that actual consideration for the land was Rs. 20,000 is based upon imaginary fact which is not supported that by evidence. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their able assistance, I have gone through the entire record and proceedings in all these matters. Though I do not find any sale deed on record, it seems that the sale deed might have been placed on record and the same might have been considered. In respect of the sale deed from Gat No. 73, 1 Acre Bagayat land was sold for Rs.10,000/-, which would fetch a rate of Rs.250/- per R. In the present case, the acquired lands are dry lands. Even if the aforesaid sale instance is taken into consideration, the rate of acquired land would come to Rs.125/- per R for the dry land. Herein, the SLAO has already granted Rs.220/- per R. 7. Considering the above, I do not find any error so as to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court. Hence, all the first appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE