1 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 21 FIRST APPEAL NO. 887 OF 2007 KISHANRAO DEVANNA ALLENIWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for the acquiring body. … AND 72 FIRST APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2007 RAMLU MALLESHU BANDIWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for the acquiring body. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9227 OF 2026 IN FA/879/2007 RAMLU MALLESHU BANDIWAR DIED THROUGH LRS RADHABAI AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDED AND ORS. … Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for the acquiring body. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:38459 2 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72 P.C.:- 1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1995, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 07.04.2007 passed by the learned C.J.S.D., Nanded in LAR Nos.121/2002 and 120/2002, whereby the learned Reference Court refused to grant compensation to the extent of amount claimed by the Claimants. 3. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:- (i) The land was acquired for the purpose of Nagzari Medium Project, Mandava Sub-minor Canal and Tail Distributory at Kinwat, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded. (ii) In First Appeal No.887 of 2007, the Appellant has claimed compensation for his acquired land to the extent of 0.40 R, situated at Digi-Gokunda, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded, bearing Survey No.126, at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per hectare. The learned Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1,09,250/-. The Appellant has preferred this appeal for the remaining amount claimed by the Appellant. (iii) In First Appeal No.879 of 2007, the Appellant has claimed 3 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72 compensation for his acquired land to the extent of 0.36 R, situated at Kinwat, District Nanded, bearing Survey No.179/1, at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The learned Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1,29,950/-. The Appellant has preferred this appeal for the remaining amount claimed by the Appellant. (iv) The Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) were published on 10.03.1997 and 11.09.1997, respectively. (v) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short “SLAO”) has granted the award on 15.03.2000. (vi) In fact, the possession was taken on 20.04.1982. The SLAO considered the sale instances from Kinwat and also from Digi Gokunda and, on the basis of guesswork, determined the compensation at Rs.95,000/- per Hectare for Group-B and Rs.1,13,000/- per Hectare for Group-C. Being aggrieved thereby, the Claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court discarded the amount claimed by the Claimants and granted enhancement by applying 15% escalation. Hence, the present appeals have been filed by the Claimants seeking further enhancement. 4 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72 4. Mr. Kurundkar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30 and 37, and he states that all the sale instances on which the Claimants have relied pertain to village Kinwat and are prior to the Section 4 Notification. He submits that though the sale instances were duly proved, the learned Reference Court, without considering any of the sale instances on which the Claimants have relied, enhanced the compensation by 15% per annum as per the rate granted by the SLAO. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the learned Reference Court needs to be modified. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Dande, learned Advocate for the acquiring body, and Mr. A. D. Wange, learned AGP for the State, have submitted that in the present acquisition, the possession was taken in the year 1982 and the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing the Notification on 10.03.1997. Therefore, the sale instances on which the Claimants have relied upon, though from Kinwat, are within the municipal limits and are for some agricultural lands and some small pieces of land. The fact remains that those sale instances pertain to lands situated within the municipal limits of Kinwat city. They submitted that the land was acquired for the irrigation project and, therefore, the sale instances from within the municipal limits cannot be considered as comparable sale instances. Therefore, they submitted 5 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72 that the learned Reference Court rightly refused to enhance the compensation pursuant to the sale instances. 6. Both the learned Advocates have invited my attention to the sale instances relied upon by the SLAO, which were prior to the Section 4 Notification, and contended that, considering the sale instances, the SLAO has rightly determined the compensation. They further submitted that the learned Reference Court, without assigning any reason, granted 15% enhancement and, therefore, they submit that the order passed by the learned Reference Court is proper. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record and proceedings. I have also gone through the copies of the sale instances below Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30 and 37. As rightly observed by the learned Reference Court, all the sale instances are within the municipal limits of Kinwat city. Ultimately, the land which is acquired is for the irrigation project and the project is more than 5 kilometres from the Municipal Council, Kinwat. More particularly, one fact also needs to be taken into consideration, that the possession was taken in the year 1982 and, therefore, the prevailing position in the year 1982 needs to be taken into consideration. But the fact cannot be denied in the present matter that the Section 4 Notification was published on 10.03.1997 and the SLAO has also collected the sale instances from the 6 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72 years 1992 to 1997 from Kinwat as well as village Digi Gokunda. As far as the sale instances from Kinwat are concerned, as those are within the municipal limits, this Court is not inclined to consider those sale instances, as those are from the Municipal Council. But the fact is that even the sale instance on which the SLAO relied is from village Digi Gokunda. As far as village Digi Gokunda is concerned, one sale instance is of the year 1996 and the rate was scrutinized by the SLAO, i.e. Rs.1,53,036/-, and the sale instance is dated 01.03.1996. It should be rounded off to Rs.1,53,000/-. Admittedly, the sale instance was relied upon and considered by the learned Reference Court, and that was from the acquired village. Therefore, I find that the same can be considered as a comparable sale instance for determining the market value. Therefore, considering the above facts, as the sale instance dated 01.03.1996 and Section 4 Notification came to be published on 10.03.1997, I am inclined to consider the said sale instance and determine the market value. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER (i) The present appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The judgments and awards dated 07.04.2007 passed by the learned C.J.S.D., Nanded in LAR Nos.121/2002 and 120/2002 are modified to the extent that the Claimants 7 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72 are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.1,53,000/- per hectare for their acquired land. (iii) The Claimants shall be entitled to receive all statutory benefits including interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of the award, as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. (iv) The rest of the award passed by the learned Reference Court remains unaltered. (v) Award be drawn accordingly. (vi) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef