1 of 7 907-FA.379.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2008 SUHALAL PRATAP PATIL AND ANR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ANR. ... Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body. ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2008 LILACHAND BHANUDAS PATIL VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR … Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2008 MRS MALATIBAI MADHAVRAO MARATHE THR LRS MADHAVRAO NILKANTHA AND ORS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ANR. … Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2008 2026:BHC-AUG:40673 2 of 7 907-FA.379.2008 SUHALAL PRATAP PATIL VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ANR. … Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body. … AND NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD FIRST APPEAL NO.382 OF 2008 PRATAP YADAV PATIL AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ANR. … Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body. … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Mr. Ajay Pawar, learned Advocate is appearing for the Respondent/acquiring body. 2. Mr. Ajay Pawar, learned Advocate for the acquiring body seeks leave to add the acquiring body as a party Respondent. Leave is granted. 3. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3 of 7 907-FA.379.2008 4. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1988, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 5. By the present appeals, the Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner, in LAR Nos.332/1993, 334/1993, 335/1993, 337/1993 and 336/1993, whereby the learned Reference Court determined the compensation for the acquired land. However, as the learned Reference Court did not grant the compensation as claimed by the Claimants, the present appeals have been preferred. 6. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:- (i) The acquired land situated at village Akhatwadi, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Hatnur Canal Sub-Distributories Nos.3, 4 and 5. (ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was published on 07.07.1988. (iii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “SLAO”) passed an award on 18.03.1991. The SLAO awarded compensation @ of Rs.158.4/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the meagre compensation awarded by the SLAO, the Claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Claimants claimed compensation @ of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- per R but, the 4 of 7 907-FA.379.2008 learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation @ of Rs.270/- per R. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are filed by the Claimants. 7. Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, learned Advocate for the Appellants, tenders across the bar the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.642 of 2008 dated 14.08.2026, whereby the land situated at village Tandalwadi, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, was acquired for the purpose of Hatnur Left Canal Kurvel Distributory. He submits that the lands situated in these villages were also acquired for the distributory canals of Hatnur Dam. He further contends that, while deciding First Appeal No.642 of 2008, this Court relied upon a sale instance from village Chahardi, which is adjacent to village Akhatwadi. He has also invited my attention to the oral evidence led on behalf of the Claimants and contended that the said evidence establishes that village Chahardi is situated near village Akhatwadi. Therefore, he prays to consider the same and allow the appeals. 8. Per contra, Mr. A. M. Phule, learned AGP for the Respondent- State, and Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body, vehemently submit that the projects are different and that merely because, in an earlier matter, this Court relied upon a sale instance from village Chahardi, the same cannot be a 5 of 7 907-FA.379.2008 ground for granting parity in the present matters. They, therefore, pray that the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.642 of 2008 may not be considered, as the two projects are different. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. From the oral evidence led by CW-1, it has come on record that village Chahardi is situated near village Akhatwadi. There is no contra evidence led before the learned Reference Court. Therefore, once it has come on record that Akhatwadi and Chahardi are adjacent to each other, and in First Appeal No.642 of 2008, the sale instance from village Chahardi was considered while granting compensation in respect of the land acquired from village Tandalwadi for the purpose of Hatnur Left Canal Kurvel Distributory, the said order assumes relevance in the present matters. 10. In the present case, the land was acquired for Hatnur Canal Sub-Distributories Nos.3, 4 and 5. In view of the fact that this Court has already considered the sale instance from village Chahardi and determined the compensation in First Appeal No.642 of 2008, I find that, though the projects are different, the said sale instance can be considered for determining the compensation in the present first appeals. Therefore, the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.642 of 2008 can be relied upon while determining the 6 of 7 907-FA.379.2008 compensation payable in the present matters. 11. As this Court has already relied upon the sale instance from village Chahardi and determined the compensation on that basis, I am inclined to partly allow the appeals. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The present appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 24.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner in LAR Nos.332/1993, 334/1993, 335/1993, 337/1993 and 336/1993 is modified to the extent that the Claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per R for the acquired lands. (iii) The Claimants shall be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. (iv) If the Claimants have not received the rental compensation at the aforesaid rate, they are at liberty to file an application before the Collector, Jalgaon. 7 of 7 907-FA.379.2008 (v) If such an application is filed, the Collector, Jalgaon shall give an opportunity of hearing to the acquiring body as well as the State and, thereafter, pass an appropriate order regarding payment of rental compensation in accordance with the Government policy. (vi) Rest of the award remains unaltered. (vii) Modified award be drawn accordingly. (viii) The Claimants to pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced amount. (ix) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef