Dilwale 1 21-FA-1088-07.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 21 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2007 Pusan Shivram Solanke. (l.rs.)govind And Others. VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others. ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. S. V. Mundhe AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. B. A. Shinde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1994, the appeal is being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellants-original claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 7th February 1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation; however, according to the appellants, the compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. The land bearing Survey No.03 adm. 7H 4R belonging to the appellants/claimants was acquired for the purpose of the Reservoir at village Ghogartala. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) came to be published on 12th December 1974. The award under Section 11 of the Act was declared on 2026:BHC-AUG:38230 Dilwale 2 21-FA-1088-07.odt 2nd February 1976. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded inadequate compensation, being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the claimants accepted the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the proper market value of the acquired land. The claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.8000/- per Acre. The learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.10,000/- per H (Rs.4000/- per Acre). 4. Mr. Mundhe, learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that, in support of their claim, the claimants relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28. The learned Reference Court considered the said sale instances and determined the market value of the acquired land. While considering the sale instance at Exhibit 20, the learned Reference Court applied excessive deduction of 20% on the ground that the land covered under the said sale instance was a small piece of land. He further submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 20 pertained to year 1971, whereas notification under Section 4 was published in the year 1974, thus at least 10% escalation per year ought to have been applied by the learned Reference Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shinde, learned AGP for the respondent-State supports the impugned order by contending that the learned Reference Court has rightly applied 20% deduction towards the small size of the land in sale instance at Exhibit 20 and further submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned award for the purpose of Dilwale 3 21-FA-1088-07.odt granting enhancement. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their able assistance, upon going through the record and proceedings, it is clear that the sale instance at Exhibit 20 pertains to the land situated in the same village, bearing Survey No. 25/1. Under the said sale transaction, one acre of land was sold for a consideration of 5,000/- (Rs.5000/- per Acre). However, the said sale instance is of the ₹ year 1971, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present case was published on 12th December 1974. While relying upon said sale instance below Exhibit 20, the learned Reference Court applied 20% deduction towards small size of land sold therein and thereby arriving at the market value of Rs.4000/- per Acre. 7. The notification under Section 4 was published in the year 1974 whereas sale instance at Exhibit 20 is of the year 1971, thus in my considered view, 10% escalation per year ought to have been granted for two years with cumulative effect. After applying such escalation, the market value of the acquired land would arrive at Rs.6000/- per Acre (Rs.15,000/- per H). Therefore, I am inclined to grant compensation @ Rs.6000/- per Acre (Rs.15,000/- per H). Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER I. The First Appeal is partly allowed. II. The appellants-original claimants shall be entitled to Dilwale 4 21-FA-1088-07.odt compensation at the rate of 6,000/- per acre ₹ , i.e. 15,000/- per ₹ hectare, for the acquired land and to that extent impugned award stands modified. III. The appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits, including interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, as applicable, from the date of the award as per Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. IV. Rest of the award passed by the learned Reference Court stands confirmed. V. Modified award be drawn accordingly. VI. Deficit Court fee be paid. VII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE