1-2-FA-1047-2007.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2007 The State Of Maha Through Collector Osmanabad VERSUS Janadhan Ganpat Mali And Another AND 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 2007 The State Of Maharashtra. VERSUS Bapu Bhagwan Mali And Others. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 2007 The State Of Maharashtra. VERSUS Nandubai Shivaji Khune (mali ). ... Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for State in FA/1047/2007. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State in FA/7070/2007 and FA/7072/2007. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2026 P. C.: 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1982, the Appeals are heard finally with the consent of learned AGP. 2. In all these Appeals, the State is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th March 1994 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR Nos.32 of 1992, 28 of 1993 and 672 of 1991. Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:28592 1-2-FA-1047-2007.doc 3. The land was acquired for Raibhar Medium Project at Palaswadi, Dist. Osmanabad by issuing a notification under Section 4 on 11th October 1982. The award was passed on 26th November 1987. The LAO awarded compensation of Rs.6,649.60/- whereas the learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.1,71,500/-. The Respondents-claimants claimed compensation @Rs.40,000/- per acre. 4. Learned AGP for State submits that the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the sale instances below Exhs.22 to 25 in LAR No.672 of 1991 produced by claimants therein. The sale instances relied upon by the learned Reference Court were situated at a distance of 1 to 3 kms from the acquired land. The lands acquired were dry lands and the compensation granted by LAO was adequate. Despite that, the learned Reference Court enhanced the same to an exorbitant amount of Rs.1,71,500/- without any justification. He further submits that the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon evidence of Mr. Baraskar. Hence, he prays to allow the present Appeals. 5. Though served, none appears for the Respondents. 6. I have considered the submission of learned AGP and gone through the record. It is clear that the learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instance at Exh.23 dated 2nd July 1982 wherein sale consideration was Rs.80,000/-. The said sale instance is three months prior to date of notification and was safely relied upon by the learned Reference Court. The Shubham 1-2-FA-1047-2007.doc learned Reference Court also recorded the finding that the said sale instance was situated within the limits of Osmanabad Municipal Council and was adjacent to the land acquired. Thus, the Reference Court considered it as a genuine and comparable sale instance thereby reaching the market value. The learned Reference Court also recorded a finding that there were mango and tamarind in the acquired land. The acquired land contained wells and pipeline, crops such as sugarcane and turmeric were being cultivated before acquisition. Therefore, considering all these aspects, learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The findings of learned Reference Court are based upon appreciation of evidence on record and reports of expert such as one Mr. Baraskar, thus I do not find any reason to interfere with the said award. 7. Hence, the First Appeal No.1047 of 2007 is dismissed. 8. The First Appeal No.1070 of 2007 and 1072 of 2007 arise out of same acquisition proceeding and similar issue is involved therein. Thus, the view taken in the present order applies mutatis mutandis to the said Appeals. 9. In view thereof, the First Appeal Nos.1070 of 2007 and 1072 of 2007 are dismissed. 10. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham