1 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2008 KAMLABEN SHRIPAT PATEL VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR ... Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2008 GIRDHAR VEDU PATIL VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR … Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 454 OF 2008 RAMU MADAN PATIL VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR … Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2008 SUDAM KALU PATIL VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR … Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. … AND 2026:BHC-AUG:42122 2 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD FIRST APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2008 GIRIDHAR SHANKAR PATEL VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR … Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. … AND NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD FIRST APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2008 MADHU LAXMAN CHAUDHARI VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR … Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. … AND NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD FIRST APPEAL NO. 4241 OF 2008 GIRDHAR NATHU MALI VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR … Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2000, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 3 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 2. By these appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 27.02.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, in LAR Nos.02/2003, 04/2003, 05/2003, 07/2003, 08/2003, 10/2003 and 18/2003, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the references, but did not grant compensation at the rate claimed by the Appellants/Claimants. 3. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:- (i) The lands belonging to the Appellants/Claimants were acquired for the Minor Irrigation Project at village Chaupala, Taluka and District Nandurbar. (ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 21.09.2000. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 20.09.2001, and the Notification under Section 9 of the Act was published on 10.12.2001. (iii) The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the LAO”) passed the award on 19.05.2002. The particulars of the lands acquired from the respective Gat numbers, the compensation awarded by the LAO and the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court are as follows:- 4 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 Sr. No. F.A. No. LAR No. Name of Claimant Gat No. Area Rates by SLAO per H Rates by Ref. Court per H. Land as per Ref. Court 1 453/2008 05/2003 Kamlaben Patel 137 40 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat 2 454/2008 08/2003 Ramu Patil 140 81 R + 15 R Potkhara b 88091 1,53,365 + 51,122 for potkhara b Seasonally irrigated 3 499/2008 18/2003 Girdhar Shankar Patel 135 20 R 1,32,135 1,53,365 Seasonally irrigated 4 456/2008 04/2003 Sudam Patil 136 76 R 1,32,135 1,53,365 Seasonally irrigated 5 485/2008 10/2003 Madhu Chaudhari 142/ 1 1 H 11 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat 6 455/2008 07/2003 Girdhar Vedu Patil 139 30 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat 7 4241/2008 02/2003 Girdhar Nathu Mali 108 32 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat (iv) Being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the learned Reference Court, the Claimants have filed present first appeals seeking higher compensation. 4. Mr. Umesh Mitkari, learned Advocate holding for Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Appellants, submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have considered the sale instances at Exhibits-20, 21 and 22 relied upon by the Claimants and ought to have awarded compensation at a higher rate. While determining the compensation, the LAO did not take into consideration the sale instances of lands situated at village Chaupala which had taken place during the period of three years preceding the Notification under 5 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 Section 4 of the Act. The LAO also did not take into consideration the income derived by the Claimants from the acquired lands. It was further contended that the acquired lands had non-agricultural potential, as they were situated adjacent to Nandurbar town. Therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation by allowing the appeals. 5. Mr. B. A. Shinde, learned AGP for the Respondent-State, supports the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. He submits that the Appellants have failed to establish sufficient ground for enhancement and the determination of compensation made by the learned Reference Court is based upon material available on record. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the first appeals. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record and proceedings. The Claimants, upon receipt of the award passed by the LAO, were granted compensation at the rate of Rs.88,091/- per Hectare for Jirayat land. In First Appeal Nos.499 of 2008, 454 of 2008 and 456 of 2008, the LAO had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,32,135/- per Hectare for seasonally irrigated land. In the remaining appeals, the acquired lands have been treated as jirayat lands. 7. The Claimants relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits-20, 6 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 21 and 22. However, the learned Reference Court discarded those sale instances on the ground that the lands covered by the said sale instances were situated adjacent to the Nandurbar-Dhule Highway. The learned Reference Court, instead, relied upon the sale instance in SLAO award at Sr. Nos.9, 63 and 68 dated 21.11.1995, 20.02.1999 and 14.07.1999 respectively. By the sale instance at Sr. No.68 dated 14.07.1999, land admeasuring 1 Hectare 56 R from Gat No.440/2 was sold @ of Rs.92,948/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court applied 10% escalation as the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published subsequent thereto on 21.09.2000, thereby arriving at a market value of Rs.1,02,243/- per Hectare. 8. The Claimants have relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits-20 and 21. Both the sale instances are of the same date i.e. 15.07.1999 and pertain to the same Gat No.57. As per the sale instance at Exhibit-21, an area admeasuring 1 Hectare 28 R was sold for a consideration of Rs.2,37,500/-. Thus, the rate works out to approximately Rs.1,85,546/- per Hectare for jirayat land. 9. The learned Reference Court discarded the said sale instance at Exhibit-21 principally on the ground that the land covered by the sale instance was situated adjacent to the Highway. However, the fact remains that the sale instance is from the same village. Merely because the land covered by the sale instance is situated adjacent to the 7 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 Highway, the sale instance cannot be discarded in its entirety, particularly when it pertains to a substantial area of 1 Hectare 28 R and is from the same village. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, deduction of 30% would adequately take care of the locational advantage enjoyed by the land covered by the sale instance. After applying 30% deduction to the rate of approximately Rs.1,85,546/- per Hectare, the rate works out to approximately Rs.1,29,882/- per Hectare. The same can reasonably be rounded off to Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare for Jirayat land and proportionately for seasonally irrigated land, in accordance with the classification made by the learned Reference Court. 11. Therefore, in my view, the Claimants are entitled to compensation @ of Rs.1,30,000/- per Hectare for the acquired jirayat land and @ of Rs.1,95,000/- for seasonally irrigated land, the rates would be as per the nature/classification of the land made by the learned Reference Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The present appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The judgments and awards dated 27.02.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, in LAR Nos.02/2003, 04/2003, 05/2003, 07/2003, 8 of 8 908-FA.453.2008 08/2003, 10/2003 and 18/2003 are modified to the extent that the respective Claimants shall be entitled to receive compensation @ of Rs.1,30,000/- per Hectare for the jirayat lands and @ of Rs.1,95,000/- for seasonally irrigated lands as per the nature/classification of lands made by the learned Reference Court. (iii) The Claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits including interest 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) The rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. (v) The modified award be drawn accordingly. (vi) The Claimants shall pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation. (vii) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef