FA 423/07 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 39 FIRST APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2007 VENKAT SADASHIV KHIRSAGAR AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Gopal D. Kale AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 17, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1988, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellants/original claimants assails the judgment and award dated 26.9.2006 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Nilanga in LAR No. 276/1998, seeking further enhancement for the acquired lands. 3. The lands of the claimants admeasuring 1 H. 55 R. from Survey No. 31 situated at village Jewari was acquired for Lower Terna Left Bank Canal. The possession of the land was taken over in March 1985 and thereafter, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 7.7.1988. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was published on 4.7.1989. The SLAO has declared the award on 30.3.1991 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per H. i.e. Rs.100/- per R. The claimants accepted the same amount under protest and being aggrieved by the same, filed application before the Collector for proper determination of the market value of acquired land. Before the reference court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance, Exh. 45 dated 6.12.1983 of village Malegaon 2026:BHC-AUG:37354 FA 423/07 2 which is adjacent village, from where land was acquired in the present matter, by which 21 R. land from Survey No. 76A was sold for Rs.15000/-. Though the learned reference court referred the sale instance, Exh. 45, has not considered the same as comparable sale instance as the same is for Bagayat land and from different village. After considering the material available on record, the reference court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.18000/- per H. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the original claimants. 4. Mr. G.D.Kale, learned counsel for the appellants/original claimants submits that once the reference court has referred the sale instance, Exh. 45, which is for Bagayat land, the fact remains that the said sale instance, which was prior to section 4 notification, was duly proved. He submits that as the villages Jewari and Malegaon are adjacent, the finding to that effect is also recorded. Even the lands from the same villages were acquired and therefore, he submits that the learned reference court ought to have granted compensation by relying upon the sale instance, Exh. 45. 5. The learned AGP submits that the SLAO has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land and the reference court has rightly not relied upon the sale instance, Exh. 45, which is in respect of small piece of land and that was from different village and also for Bagayat land. He therefore 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 judgment and award of the reference court. In the present case, though section 4 notification was published on 7.7.1988, the possession of the acquired land was taken in March 1985 and therefore, in the present case, it would be FA 423/07 3 relevant to consider the date of possession. Here in the present case, it is the case of the original claimants/appellants that possession of the land was taken in the month of March 1985 and therefore, sale instance dated 6.12.1983 which was prior to section 4 notification and from adjacent village Malegaon can be considered as comparable sale instance as 21 R. land from village Malegaon was sold for Rs.15,000/- and the rate comes to Rs.71,400/- per H. and as the reference court has recorded that the said sale instance in respect of Bagayat land, therefore, by applying deductions of 50%, the same can be used as comparable sale instance in the present case as in the present case, the land is dry land. As the sale instance, Exh. As the sale instance, Exh. 45 is from other village, I further deem it appropriate to apply 10% deduction while determine the market value, which comes to Rs. 64,260/- per H. for Bagayat land. In view of the above calculation, as the acquired land is dry land, I deem it appropriate that the reference court ought to have granted compensation at the rate of Rs.32,130/- per H. for acquired land. 7. As regards interest and statutory benefits are concerned, the same is given from the date of taking over possession which is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. 8. As regards rental compensation is concerned, the claimants are at liberty to file appropriate application before Collector Latur for getting rental compensation. Hence, I pass the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeal is partly allowed. (II) The appellants/original claimants are entitled to receive compensation FA 423/07 4 at the rate of Rs.32,130/- per H. for their acquired lands. (III) Appellants/original claimants are entitled to receive the interest and statutory benefits in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). (IV) The claimants are at liberty to file appropriate application before the Collector, Latur for getting rental compensation. If such an application is filed, the Collector Latur to consider the same by giving opportunity to both the parties including the acquiring body and determine and pay the rental compensation as per the Government policy, if already not paid. (V) Pending civil application, if any, stand disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/