Dilwale 1 26-fa-793-08.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 26 FIRST APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2008 Ratnaji Sadashiv Patil Thr Lrs Vishwanath And Ors VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. V. V. Ingale AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. B. A. Shinde Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Kalpalatapatil Bharaswadkar ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1984, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. By this appeal, the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in L.A.R. No. 1014 of 2005, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference but did not grant compensation as claimed by the appellant. 4. The house properties bearing House Nos. 39, 40, 60 and 62 adm. 711 sq. mtrs. situated at village Karajgaon, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the purpose of the Lower Terna Project, Makani. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 2026:BHC-AUG:38229 Dilwale 2 26-fa-793-08.odt Act was published on 31.05.1984, the notice under Section 12(2) was issued on 20.04.1988 and the award under Section 11 was passed on 30.03.1988. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.1,04,698/- to the claimants. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought enhancement of compensation by filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the acquired properties and relied upon the Valuation Report at Exhibit 29. However, upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Reference Court granted additional compensation of Rs.30,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. V. V. Ingale, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the acquired properties consisted of House Nos. 39 and 40, which were constructed houses, whereas House Nos. 60 and 62 were open plots. He submits that the claimants had examined the valuer and relied upon the Valuation Report at Exhibit 29. According to the learned counsel, the valuer had inspected the acquired properties and assessed their value on the basis of the D.S.R. rates prevailing for the years 1983-84. He, therefore, submits that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of the said Valuation Report. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the acquiring Dilwale 3 26-fa-793-08.odt body, submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had correctly determined the compensation payable for the acquired properties. Learned counsel further submits that though several properties in the village were acquired, only a few claimants had obtained valuation reports and relied upon the same for claiming enhanced compensation. She further submits that the Valuation Report cannot be relied upon, particularly when the structures were old and constructed with inferior material, including murum and jungle wood. According to her, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had personally considered the nature and condition of the structures while determining the compensation. She, therefore, submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly awarded additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- and no further enhancement is warranted. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and, with their able assistance, upon going through the record and proceedings, it is clear that the claimants have mainly relied upon the Valuation Report at Exhibit 29. The valuer has stated that he had inspected the acquired properties and assessed their value on the basis of the D.S.R. rates for the years 1983-84. However, the evidence on record does not inspire confidence so as to place reliance upon the said report for determining the market value of the acquired properties. 9. It is pertinent to note that the claimants had filed the reference seeking enhanced compensation without placing any contemporaneous Dilwale 4 26-fa-793-08.odt material regarding the valuation of the acquired structures. The Valuation Report was subsequently brought on record during the course of evidence. Apart from the Valuation Report, no independent and reliable evidence has been produced to substantiate the valuation claimed by the appellants. 10. The evidence on record further indicates that out of the four acquired properties, only House Nos. 39 and 40 were constructed structures, whereas House Nos. 60 and 62 were open plots. The Reference Court has considered the nature and condition of the acquired properties and the evidence brought on record while determining the compensation. 11. In the absence of reliable and cogent evidence to establish that the market value determined by the Reference Court is inadequate, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award. I do not find that the learned Reference Court has committed any error in appreciating the evidence and determining the compensation. Consequently, no case is made out for further enhancement of compensation. 12. The appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.]