957-fa-644-2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2008 1. Govind Dhondiba Gursude Since deceased through Legal Heirs, Orig. Claimant. 1A. Sangita Govind Gursude, Age: 36 years, Occ: Household. 1B. Prashant Govind Gursude, Age: 11 years, Occ: Nil. 1C. Pragati Govind Gursude, Age: 9 years, Occ: Nil. (Appellant 1B and 1C, under guardianship of appellant no.1A) All Resident of Anand Wadi Post Hadolti, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. …..APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Local Sector, Latur. …..RESPONDENTS AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2008 Vasant s/o Dhondiba Gursude, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Hadolti, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. …..APPELLANT Original claimant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Local Sector, Latur. …..RESPONDENTS 2026:BHC-AUG:17551 957-fa-644-2008 -2- AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2008 Dhondiba Mahadu Gursude Died through his L.Rs. 1. Bhagirathi w/o Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude, Died through Lrs, 2. Bhimrao S/o. Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude, Age: 63 years, Occu: Agri, 3. Sangita w/o Govind Gursude, Age: 48 years, Occu: H.H., 4. Prashant s/o Govind Gursude, Age: 27 years, Occu: Education, 5. Pragati d/o Govind Gursude, Age: 24 years, Occu: Education., 6. Usha w/o Anil Biradar, Age: 53 years, Occu: H.H., 7. Hanmant s/o Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude, Age: 48 years, Occu: H.H. 8. Hanmant s/o Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude, Age: 46 years, Occu: Agri, All R/o Anandwadi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur. …..Applicants (Orig. Claimants) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Local Sector, Latur. …..RESPONDENTS 957-fa-644-2008 -3- AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 647 OF 2008 Bhimrao S/o Dhondiba Gursude, Age: 44 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Hadolti, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur. …..APPELLANT Original claimants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Local Sector, Latur. …..RESPONDENTS AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2008 Hanmant s/o Dhondiba Gursude, Age: 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Hadolti, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur. …..APPELLANT Original claimants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Local Sector, Latur. …..RESPONDENTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar a/w Mr. Anurag V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Appellants Mr. Virendra V. Jahagirdar, AGP for Respondent-State _____________________________________________________________ 957-fa-644-2008 -4- CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. All these appeals are preferred against the judgment and awards passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Latur as per the following details of judgments and awards: Sr. No. First Appeal No. L.A.R. No. Block No. Area 1 644 of 2008 278 of 2005 110 36R 2 645 of 2008 276 of 2005 110 36R 3 646 of 2008 274 of 2005 109 2H 02R 4 647 of 2008 277 of 2005 110 36R 5 648 of 2008 275 of 2005 110 36R 2. Learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out the pleadings, the evidence, grounds of objections in the appeals and reasons and findings in the impugned judgment. The claimants’ lands situated at village Hadolti Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur were acquired for the purpose of Hadolti Percolation Tank No.6 by the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 07.08.2003. The possession of the acquired lands was taken on 20.05.2002. 3. The claimants claimed compensation @Rs.7,500/- per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.935/- per Are and the 957-fa-644-2008 -5- learned Land Reference Court awarded Rs.2804/- per Are for the irrigated lands of the appellants. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and award is not legal and correct. The learned Reference Court has not considered the sale exemplar at Exhibit 17 dated 07.01.2002 in its proper perspective, which was relevant, admissible and bonafide sale exemplar executed for 40 Are for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.5000/- per Are which was also irrigated land. He submitted that the sale exemplar was executed 1 ½ years prior to the said acquisition proceedings. Therefore, claimants are entitled for 10% escalation for one year. He prayed to allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment and award by enhancing the amount of compensation. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellants further pointed out that the possession of the appellants’ lands were taken on 20.05.2002 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued and published in the gazette dated 07.08.2003, after one year of taking possession. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for rental compensation @9% per annum as per the law laid down in the case of Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil VS. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 15 SCC 657, in which paragraph no.20 reads as under: 957-fa-644-2008 -6- “20. There is no evidence that such land was being put to use by the landowners even prior to the taking of possession by the State. But the fact remains that the possession has been taken without payment of compensation depriving the landowners of the right to use land. Therefore, the land owners would be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession which was taken in the year 1984/1992 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on the amount awarded after acquisition that is the sum of Rs.70/- per square feet. The appellant shall be entitled to others statutory benefits on the compensation amount of Rs.70/- per square feet from the date of award till realization.” 6. Learned AGP for the respondent-State strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that reasonable amount of compensation is awarded by the learned Reference Court. However, in Appeal No.646 of 2008, 2H 02R land is acquired, and for that deduction in the amount of compensation is justified. He submitted that reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are not legal and no interference is warranted in it. He prayed to dismiss the appeals. 7. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the sale exemplar at Exhibit 17 as well as oral and documentary evidence on record. The sale exemplar at Exhibit 17 is admissible in evidence as per Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the proof of the contents of the document stands dispensed with (corresponding provisions under Section 56 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). 957-fa-644-2008 -7- 8. The witness Mr. Shripatrao Patil, C.W. No.2, purchaser of the said land supported the claimant. His evidence and sale exemplar at Exhibit-17 is not disproved by the respondents. The sale exemplar was executed on 07.01.2002 for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.5000/- per Are. The land acquisition process was started by notification under Section 4 dated 07.08.2003, one and half year after the execution of the said sale deed. Therefore, the sale exemplar at Exibit-17 is found to be relevant, applicable and a bonafide transaction. Therefore, it is comparable sale exemolar. As per the sale exemplar at Exhibit-17, 40 R land was sold. Except in the appeal no.646 of 2008, all the acquired lands are less than 40R. Therefore, there is no necessity for any deduction on the point of size of the land while determining the value of the said acquired lands except in First Appeal No.646 of 2008. 9. The land sold under the sale exemplar was irrigated land and claimants’ lands are admittedly irrigated. In First Appeal No.646 of 2008, 2H and 2R land is acquired. Therefore, a 20% deduction for bigger size of acquired land is justifiable. As per the sale exemplar, Exhibit-17, price of the land purchased is Rs.5000/- per Are. If 20% is deducted, then it comes to Rs.4000/- per Are. For one and half year, 10% escalation would just and proper, after escalation @10% for one year is considered, the price comes to Rs.4400/- per Are for which the 957-fa-644-2008 -8- appellants in First Appeal No.646 of 2008 are entitled. 10. The claimants’ lands were acquired as per notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 07.08.2003 and sale exemplar is dated 07.01.2002. For that one year, 10% escalation in price of acquired land needs to be awarded. If the 10 percent escalation is granted in other appeals, then it comes to Rs.5500/- per Are for the irrigated land. The claimants in all the appeals except appeal no.646 of 2008 are entitled for the compensation @Rs.5500/- per Are. 11. All the claimants are entitled for rental compensation from 20.05.2002 to 07.08.2003 @9% per annum. Learned Reference Court has not given convincing reasons while appreciating the sale exemplar at Exhibit 17 and awarded lesser amount of compensation @Rs.2804/- per Are. Therefore, interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be set aside. Appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence, the following order: ORDER a. All the First Appeals are allowed. b. Impugned judgments and award are partly set aside and modified as under: 957-fa-644-2008 -9- i. Appellants are entitled for the compensation @Rs.4400/- per Are in First Appeal No.646 of 2008, and in other appeals, appellants are entitled for the compensation @Rs.5500/- per Are with all the statutory benefits including the component, interest and solatium as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ii. Appellants are also entitled for the rental compensation @9% from 20.05.2002 to 07.08.2003. c. It is clarified that the claimants shall not be entitled to the interest for the period of delay, if any, condoned by this Court caused for filing appeals. d. The enhanced amount of compensation with statutory benefits, shall be deposited in this Court within a period of six months from today and on payment of deficit Court fees, if any, the same shall be paid to the claimants. e. The award be drawn up accordingly. f. The Record and Proceedings be sent back. g. Deficit Court fees, if any, be paid. h. Pending Civil Applications, if any, are disposed of. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) Rushikesh/2026