Dilwale 1 24-fa-459-08.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 24 FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2008 Bhimrao Yadav Bhalerao Sonawane & Ors VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. B. K. Pawar h/f Mr. A. B. Kale AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1975, the appeal is taken up for the final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The appellants/original claimants have preferred the present appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in LAR No.68/1986, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. However, the compensation was not enhanced to the extent claimed by the claimants. 3. The land of the appellants adm. 30R from Block No.356/3 was acquired for the purpose of extension of Gaothan at village Mamurabad, Taluka and District Jalgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 14.08.1975. 2026:BHC-AUG:38624 Dilwale 2 24-fa-459-08.odt The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16.10.1975 and the possession was taken on 13.12.1995. The award under Section 11 was declared on 12.06.1984 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,032/- per hectare, i.e. approximately Rs.150/- per R. The learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs.21,666/- per H. 4. Mr. A. B. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the acquired land had substantial non-agricultural and residential potential. He further submits that the acquired land was situated adjacent to the road and the adjoining lands had already been converted to non-agricultural use. He further submits that, since the acquisition itself was for the purpose of extension of Gaothan, the potentiality of the acquired land ought to have been properly considered. He further submits that sale instance at Exhibit 106 though related to a smaller plot and a developed property, the same could not have been discarded outright. He further submits that appropriate deduction could have been made towards development and other relevant factor and thereafter the same could have been taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, Mr. D. R. Korde, learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State, supports the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. He submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 106 Dilwale 3 24-fa-459-08.odt relied upon by the appellants was not comparable with the acquired land. He further submits that the plot covered by the said sale instance was situated in a developed area and had already acquired non-agricultural potential, whereas acquired land was used for the cultivation at the time of taking possession. He further submits that the land covered by sale instance at Exhibit 106 and acquired land has distinct nature, extent and location. Therefore, the two lands cannot be treated with each other as comparable. He therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the evidence on record and the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, it reveals that there is no dispute that the land was acquired for the purpose of extension of Gaothan. The claimants have specifically contended that the acquired land possessed non-agricultural and residential potential and that the adjacent lands had been converted to non-agricultural use. However, the claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to suggest that prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the lands adjacent to the acquired land either were converted to non agricultural land or structure like, house, shops or any other commercial structures were in existence therein. Therefore, the bare assertions of the claimants that the acquired land has the potentiality to be converted into non agricultural land cannot be relied upon. Dilwale 4 24-fa-459-08.odt 7. The claimants further relied upon sale instances at Exhibit 106 dated 19.05.1974 and Exhibit 102 dated 04.06.1974. So far as the sale instance at Exhibit 106 is concerned, it relates to a smaller plot situated in developed area within the locality of the Grampanchayat of Mamurabad, whereas the acquired land is an agricultural land situated beyond residential zone at Mamurabad, therefore, the said transaction cannot be adopted mechanically for determining the market value of the acquired land. The plot covered by sale instance at Exhibit 106 used for residential purpose within the limits of Grampanchayat Mamurabad and thus, the same cannot be said to be the land having similar advantages, potentiality and quality as that of the acquired agricultural land which was continuously used for the agricultural purpose therefore such open plot cannot be considered as comparable for awarding similar market value for the acquired land, and therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly declined to rely upon the said sale instance. 8. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 102 dated 04.06.1974, wherein agricultural land adm. 90 R was sold for Rs.19,500/- on 04.06.1974 from the same village of the acquired land and the transaction is prior to the notification under Section 4 i.e. 14.08.1975, therefore, the same is quite proximate in time, location and similar in advantages to the acquired land. Therefore, learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon the said sale instance to determine the appropriate market value of the acquired land. Therefore, I do not find Dilwale 5 24-fa-459-08.odt any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and no case is made out for the enhancement. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER I) The First Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. II) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE