Dilwale 1 902-FA-116-08.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2008 Bhagwan Lalji Patil L.rs. Nandlal Bhagwan L.rs. Kusumbai Nandlal Patil And Ors VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2008 Baliram Hari Patil L.rs. Gulab Baliram Patil And Ors VERSUS The Specialland Acq. Officfer And Ors ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Vijay Bhalerao Patil AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. A. M. Phule Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pokharkar Darshan Dinkarrao ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 01.09.2026 PER COURT : 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1978, the appeals are being heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By these appeals, the appellants-original claimants challenge the judgment and award dated 28.06.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in LAR Nos.25 and 63 of 1990, to the extent it directs recovery of the amount already withdrawn by them. 3. The lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of Bahula 2026:BHC-AUG:40849 Dilwale 2 902-FA-116-08.odt Medium Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act”) was published on 05.10.1978, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26.08.1981, Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 22.09.1986. The SLAO granted compensation @ Rs.13,000/- per H for irrigated land and the learned Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.18,000/- per H for irrigated land and Rs.9000/-per H for dry land, whereas the claimants have claimed compensation @ Rs. 93,000/- per H. 4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the SLAO had awarded meagre compensation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded, the claimants sought enhancement by filing references. Initially, the references were allowed. The said decision was challenged by the acquiring body by filing First Appeal No.37 of 1990 along with connected appeals. He further submits that by order dated 11th January 2005, this Court set aside the award passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR Nos.24 of 1990, 25 of 1990, 26 of 1990 and 27 of 1990 and remanded the matters to the learned Reference Court for fresh consideration. After remand, the claimants relied upon the same sale instance at Exhibit 34 dated 22nd December 1977 pertaining to village Khedgaon, a sale instance situated at a considerable distance from the acquired lands. Upon reconsideration, the learned Reference Court did not grant any further enhancement. Since, during the pendency of the proceedings, the claimants had withdrawn the amount, the learned Dilwale 3 902-FA-116-08.odt Reference Court directed recovery of the amount already withdrawn by them. He further submits that the present appeals are, therefore, confined to the direction regarding recovery. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the appellants are not seeking any enhancement in the compensation awarded for the acquired lands and are restricting their challenge to the direction of recovery issued by the learned Reference Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pundalik Bajirao Patil (D) by Lrs. v. State of Maharashtra decided on 15.10.2012 set aside the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and maintained the order passed by the learned Civil Court in LAR No.15 of 1989 dated 30.04.1992. He further submits that in LAR No.15 of 1989 the learned Civil Court has determined the compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per H for jirayat land and Rs.75,000/- per H for Bagayat land. The learned Civil Court had relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 34 from the close vicinity of the acquired land in LAR No.15 of 1989. 6. Per contra, learned AGP for the State submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly declined to rely upon the sale instance at Exhibit 34 dated 22.12.1977 produced by the claimants. The land covered under the said sale instance was situated at considerable distance from the acquired land. The learned Civil Court in LAR No.15/1989 has erroneously relied upon Exhibit 34 as it was not from the close vicinity of the acquired land. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal. Dilwale 4 902-FA-116-08.odt 7. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned AGP for the respondent-State. 8. In LAR No.15 of 1989, the learned Civil Court had determined the compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per H for jirayat land and Rs.75,000/- per H for Bagayat land and had relied upon the same sale instances which are relied upon in the present appeals. Since the order passed in LAR No.15 of 1989 has already been maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr. Patil has tendered a copy thereof on record. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the said order in LAR No.15 of 1989, it appears that the learned Civil Court by relying upon the sale instance at Exhibit 34 had determined the market value and enhanced the compensation. The said LAR also pertains to the same project. Though the acquired lands are situated in a different village, the learned Civil Court had relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 34 for determining the market value, and the said determination has already been maintained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 10. Moreover, the appellants have placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8486 of 2012 in the matter of Pundalik Bajirao Patil (D) by Lrs. v. State of Maharashtra decided on 15.10.2012. By the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by this Court and maintained the order passed by the learned Civil Court in LAR No.15 of 1989 dated 30th April 1992. Dilwale 5 902-FA-116-08.odt 11. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly the fact that the claimants are not seeking any enhancement in the present appeals and are challenging only the direction for recovery, I am of the view that the impugned award, to the extent of directing recovery, cannot be sustained. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The direction issued by the learned Reference Court for recovery of the amount already withdrawn by the claimants, as contained in operative clause Nos.3 and 6 of the impugned award, is hereby set aside. (iii) The rest of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. (iv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE