1 of 3 05-FA.2627.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2627 OF 2008 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS BABRUWAHAN SHRIHARI KHESE & ANR. ... Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State. Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/f. Mr. Vasant Digambarrao Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1988, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the Appellant-State is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.01.1996 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Latur in LAR No.112/1992, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. 3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:- (i) The land was acquired for construction of a percolation tank at Matephal, Taluka and District Latur. (ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 25.02.1988. 2026:BHC-AUG:38298 2 of 3 05-FA.2627.2008 (iii) The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) passed an award on 08.02.1991. The LAO granted compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per R. (iv) Being aggrieved by the same, the Claimants filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the learned Reference Court, the Claimants relied upon the sale instance dated 03.04.1982, and on the basis thereof, the learned Reference Court determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per Acre. 4. Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State submits that the award passed by the SLAO reflects true and correct market value. The SLAO granted just and proper compensation after considering the comparable sale instances and the nature of acquired land. He further submits that the learned Reference Court granted exorbitant compensation without proper justification. The learned Reference Court erroneously relied upon sale instance at Exhibit-12. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 5. Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/f. Mr. Vasant Digambarrao Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order passed by the learned Reference Court. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record 3 of 3 05-FA.2627.2008 and proceedings. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-12, which was dated 03.04.1982. As per the sale instance, the rate comes to Rs.35,000/- per Acre for bagayat land, though the sale instance was executed on 03.04.1982 and the notification was published under Section 4 on 25.02.1988, the learned Reference Court granted 10% escalation per year. The learned Reference Court considered the lands of the Claimants were dry lands and on the basis thereof, the learned Reference Court has determined the rate. Therefore, I find that the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the sale instance and determined the market value. I find that the learned Reference Court has not granted any exorbitant amount in favour of the Claimants. 7. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award dated 17.01.1996 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in LAR No.112/1992. 8. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef