908-FA-1402-2008.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1402 OF 2008 Jalinder Shankar Tambare And Ors VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1405 OF 2008 Trimbak Prabhu Tambare And Ors VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1403 OF 2008 Rangnath Bhanudas Rupner And Ors VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ... Mr. T. B. Bhosale for the Appellant. Smt. A. S. Mantri, AGP for State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026 P. C.: 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997, the Appeals are being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By these Appeals, the Appellants-original claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23rd June 2006, passed by the the Ad hoc Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:35646 908-FA-1402-2008.doc Additional District Judge, Beed in LAR Nos.51, 52 and 55 of 2000, whereby compensation to the extent claimed by the claimants came to be refused. The land of the claimants was acquired for the purpose of minor irrigation tank at village Bangarwadi. The notification under Section 4 was published on 27th February 1997, declaration under Section 6 was published on 29th January 1998, the possession was taken on 26th February 1996 i.e. prior to notification under Section 4, the award was passed on 29th September 1998. The SLAO awarded compensation @Rs.210/- and 240/- per R. The claimants claimed compensation @Rs.3000/- per R. The learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.500/- per R. Following lands were acquired by the acquiring body:- Sr. No. LAR No. Gat No. Area 1. 52/2000 840 841 89 R 2. 55/2000 830/EE 830/A 833 & 834 1H 41 R 3. 51/2000 830/A 830/AA 833 834 1H 41R 3. The learned counsel for the Appellants-original claimants submits that the claimants have relied upon sale instances at Exh.39 to 41 which were comparable with the acquired land. The claimants have further relied upon certified copy of Index II at Exh.42, but the learned Reference Court Shubham 908-FA-1402-2008.doc erroneously discarded sale instance below Exh.39 on the ground that the same was post notification sale deed. The learned Reference Court erroneously discarded sale instances below Exhs.40 and 41 on the ground that they pertained to seasonally irrigated land and irrigated land respectively. He submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have considered these sale instances by applying appropriate deductions as there is no straight jacket formula that post notification sale instance cannot be considered or land having different nature cannot be considered. Therefore he submits that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation and prays to allow the Appeals. 4. Per contra, learned AGP for the State submits that the SLAO has awarded adequate compensation which was enhanced by the learned Reference Court and there is no further need to enhance the same. The sale instances below Exhs.39, 40 and 41 were rightly discarded by the Reference Court as they were not comparable with the acquired land for the reason that they were different in nature. Therefore he prays to dismiss the First Appeals. 5. Having considered rival submissions of the learned counsel and upon going through the record and proceeding, it is clear that the possession was taken prior to notification under Section 4. The claimants have produced sale instances below Exhs.39, 40 and 41. The learned Reference Court has rightly discarded sale instance below Exh.39 on the ground that it was post Shubham 908-FA-1402-2008.doc notification sale instance. Sofar as the sale instance below Exh.40 is concerned, the same is dated 17th August 1996, whereby 81R seasonally irrigated land from Survey No.327 from the same village Patoda was sold for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.2469/- per R). The notification under Section 4 was published on 27th February 1997, thus the said sale instance is immediately prior to the notification and can safely be relied upon while determining market value of the acquired land. As the acquired land is dry land, the compensation for the same must be granted @Rs.1600/- per R. 6. Sofar as the enhancement with respect to the trees is concerned, I am of the opinion that learned Reference Court has granted adequate compensation for the same and no further enhancement is warranted. 7. The record reveals that the learned Reference Court has granted interest under Section 28 from the date of notification. Therefore, the impugned award warrants modification to that extent in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R i. The First Appeals are partly allowed. ii. The claimants are entitled to compensation @Rs.1600/- per R for dry land and to that extent impugned award stands modified. iii. The claimants shall be entitled to the interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the date of award as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) Shubham 908-FA-1402-2008.doc and to that extent impugned award stands modified. iv. Rest of the award passed by the learned Reference Court is 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, J.] Shubham