1 of 6 02-FA.285.2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2007 PASHU MAHEBOOB PATEL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2007 SIRAJ MAHEBOOB PATEL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2007 KARIM CHAND PATEL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2007 HAMID CHANDU @ CHAND PATEL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, Advocate for Appellant in all the matters. Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State in all the matters. Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad in all the matters. … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Despite service, Zilla Parishad, Latur has not engaged any Advocate to represent it in the present matter. This matter is pending 2026:BHC-AUG:38829 2 of 6 02-FA.285.2007 for final hearing since 2007, therefore, this Court called Mr. U. B. Bondar, learned Advocate, who is on the panel of Respondent No.2- Zilla Parishad to workout the matter. Learned Advocate graciously accepted the same and worked out the matters for the Zilla Parishad, Latur. 2. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1993, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 3. By the present appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.10.2006 passed by the learned IIIrd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Latur in LAR Nos.1223/1999, 1224/1999, 1226/1999 and 1227/1999. 4. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:- (i) The land admeasuring 1 Hectare 62 R from Survey No.224 was acquired for the purpose of Percolation Tank at Village Jawali, Taluka Ausa, District Latur. (ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 22.11.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) passed the award on 17.10.1996 and awarded compensation of Rs.21,000/- per hectare, i.e. Rs.210/- per R. The Claimants are the owners of the 3 of 6 02-FA.285.2007 land as shown below:- LAR No. S. No. Area H:R 1223/1999 225 00:82 1224/1999 623 01:65 1225/1999 188 01:62 1226/1999 226 01:65 1227/1999 225 01:21 (v) The Claimants claimed compensation @ of Rs.1,00,000/- per Acre (Rs.2,500/- per R). The learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.500/- per R. 5. Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, learned Advocate for the Appellants, submits that, as regards the sale instances below Exhibits-22 and 24, those are from Village Apchunda, and Exhibit-35 pertains to the same village Jawali. He submits that the learned Reference Court, though relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-35 and determined the market rate at Rs.500/-, without recording any reasons, and therefore, he submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have determined the market rate at a higher rate. Hence, he prayed for further enhancement. 6. Per contra, Mr. U. B. Bondar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad, submits that the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-35, which is for 4 of 6 02-FA.285.2007 irrigated land, whereas the lands of the Claimants are dry land and therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly determined the compensation at Rs.500/- per R, which is proper. He further submits that are not entitled to further enhancement. 7. He further submits that even the learned Reference Court ought not to have granted Rs.500/- per R, as the acquired land is dry land, whereas, as per the sale instance, the land is irrigated land. Even the 7/12 extract shows that the Claimants were taking Kharif season crops and, therefore, he submits that there is no scope for granting further enhancement in the present matters. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record and proceedings and also the award passed by the learned Reference Court. The LAO has granted the rate of Rs.210/- per R. The learned Reference Court has granted the rate of Rs.500/- per R for the acquired land. The Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits- 22, 24 and 35. As regards Exhibits-22 and 24 are concerned, those are of a different village, i.e. Village Apchunda, and the learned Reference Court has rightly discarded those sale instances. However, as regards the sale instance below Exhibit-35 is concerned, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the said sale instance, as the same is for Village Jawali. The land in sale instance was irrigated land, whereas the 5 of 6 02-FA.285.2007 acquired land is dry land. 9. The Claimants further relied upon the order passed in LAR No.573/1994 below Exhibit-23, wherein the land was acquired for Percolation Tank at Village Jawali. The learned Reference Court has determined the market rate for the acquired land at Rs.32,000/- per acre for dry land. It was not brought on record before the learned Reference Court that there was a challenge to the said order or the said order was set aside by this Court. Therefore, I find that, though the order passed in the other LAR cannot be considered as a binding precedent, it can certainly be considered as a guiding principle for determining the correct market value. Therefore, once the land from the same village was acquired earlier and compensation @ of Rs.32,000/- per Acre was granted, I find that the Claimants are entitled to receive compensation @ of Rs.32,000/- per Acre, i.e. Rs.800/- per R. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER (i) All the present appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The Claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per Acre, i.e. Rs.800/- per R for the acquired land and to that extent impugned awards stand modified. (iii) The Claimants are entitled to receive the statutory 6 of 6 02-FA.285.2007 benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (iv) The Claimants are entitled to receive interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of the award as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. (v) Rest of the awards passed by the learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered. (vi) Awards be drawn accordingly. (vii) Deficit court fees be paid. (viii) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef