FA 656/08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 56 FIRST APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2008 BHIMRAO GURAPPA ARALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR ... Advocate for Appellant : Ms. Prerna M. Kharat (appointed) AGP for Respondents: Mr. D.R. Korde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 31, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the present acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1989, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment and award dated 9.8.2007 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 197/1996, whereby the reference court has enhanced the compensation, but not granted as prayed by the claimant. 3. The land of the claimant admeasuring 1 H. 25 R. from Gat No. 497/KH and 2 H. 46 R. from Gat No. 484/B situated at village at Andoor (Dhangarwadi), Tq. Tuljapur, District Osmanabad were acquired for the purpose of Palas-Nilegaon Minor Irrigation Tank. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 20.7.1989 and it was also published in Government Gazette on 1.8.1991. The learned Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed the award on 4.9.1993 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per Acre for acquired lands. The claimant received the said amount under protest and being dissatisfied with 2026:BHC-AUG:41160 FA 656/08 2 the award of the SLAO, the claimant filed an application before the Collector for referring the matter under section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the market value of the acquired lands. The learned reference court after going through the evidence and examining the record and relying upon the sale instances below Exh. 31 recorded finding that rate comes to Rs.40,000/- per Acre. However, the reference court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per Acre without any reason, though claimant has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per Acre. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 4. Ms. Prerna M. Kharat, learned counsel appointed for appellant submits that the reference court has not considered the evidence available on record, especially, the sale instances below Exhs. 31 and 32 in it’s proper perspective and has granted meager compensation for the irrigated lands. She therefore prays to enhance the compensation. 5. Per contra, Mr. D.R. Korde, learned AGP supports the order passed by the reference court and submits that the reference court has rightly considered evidence on record and granted proper compensation. He therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings, the impugned judgment and award of the reference court as well as SLAO, 7/12 extracts and the sale deeds etc. Here in the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the lands of the claimant were acquired for Palas-Nilegaon Minor Irrigation Project. Section 4 notification was published on 20.7.1989 and it was also published in Government Gazette on 1.8.1991. Before the reference court, the claimant has relied upon two sale deeds below Exh. 26 FA 656/08 3 and 31. As regards sale deed, Exh. 26, dated 18.6.1990 is concerned, that was after section 4 notification and therefore, that cannot be considered as comparable sale instance. As regards sale deed Exh. 31, dated 8.2.1989 is concerned, that was for one Acre land, which was sold for Rs.40,000/- along with 1/2 share in the well. Here in this case the acquired lands were irrigated lands and even the reference court has recorded finding that there was one well as per the evidence of Jr. Engineer and the claimant was cultivating the acquired land through the source of water and taking crops like sugarcane, wheat, sunflower and groundnut etc. and therefore, it can be safely gathered that acquired lands are irrigated lands. Therefore, the sale deed, Exh. 31 can be considered as comparable sale instance. By applying 10% deduction the rate comes to Rs.36000/- per Acre. Hence, I pass the following order. O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per Acre for their acquired lands. (iii) The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits including interest under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. (iv) The claimant shall not be entitled to receive interest and other statutory benefits for the delayed period, if any, i.e. from the date of award till the filing of the present appeal. (v) The claimant to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount. FA 656/08 4 (vi) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified accordingly. (vii) Rest of the award shall remain unaltered. (viii) Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. (ix) High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad shall pay fees of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) to Ms. Prerna M. Kharat, learned counsel appointed for appellant. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/