905-906-FA-800-2008.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 FIRST APPEAL NO. 800 OF 2008 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Nivarati Sakharam Bombalge Died Lrs AND 906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 801 OF 2008 State Of Maha VERSUS Dhondiba Sambhau Kechare … Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for State. Mr. S. S. Panale for the Respondents. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2026 P. C.: 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1988, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By these Appeals, the State is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2nd April 1996, passed by the Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur in LAR Nos.83 and 105 of 1991 whereby enhanced compensation came to be granted to the Respondents-claimants. 3. The land of the Respondents-claimants was acquired for the purpose of construction of Airstrip at Latur. The notification under Section 4 was published on 28th April 1988. Possession was taken on 14th February 1987. Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:28817 905-906-FA-800-2008.doc The LAO granted compensation of Rs.18,120/-. The Reference Court granted compensation of Rs.1,51,000/- whereas the Respondents-claimants had claimed compensation @Rs.50,000/- per acre. 4. Mr. Shinde, learned AGP for State submits that the learned Reference Court has committed an error appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence. He submits that the SLAO has rightly granted the compensation considering the quality of the land. The SLAO considered the comparable sale instances and rightly arrived at proper market value for the acquired land but the Reference Court enhanced the same unreasonably. Hence, he prays to allow the First Appeals. 5. Mr. Panale, learned counsel for the Respondents strongly opposed the present Appeal and supported the impugned award. 6. I have considered submissions of learned AGP and gone through R&P. The claimants produced sale instance below Exh.19 dated 6th March 1987 wherein the land admeasuring 2 acres was sold for Rs.95,104/-. The learned Reference Court by considering the fact that the sale instance was prior to one year of the date of notification under Section 4, applied 10% escalation. It further recorded a finding that acquired land is situated 2 to 3 kms from land in sale instance below Exh.19. Thus, it came to market value of Rs.40,000/- per acre. Further, it deducted 20% from said market value towards betterment charges and deferred value thereby reaching compensation of Rs.7,54,500/- and Rs.2,26,500/- in respective Appeals. The Shubham 905-906-FA-800-2008.doc conclusion arrived by the learned Reference Court is appropriate and requires no interference. Thus, considering the above I do not find any perversity in the said order to the extent of quantum of compensation. 7. Hence, the present Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham