ca9459.09 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9459 OF 2009 IN/WITH REJECTED CASE NO. 1636 OF 2003 State of Maharashtra VERSUS Gulabrao Narayan Patil ….. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9461 OF 2009 IN/WITH REJECTED CASE NO. 1637 OF 2003 State of Maharashtra VERSUS Nalinibai Narhar Patil ….. Advocate for Applicant : Mr. K.N. Lokhande Advocate for Respondents : Mr. C.K. Shinde ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. These applications are filed for condonation of delay of 28 days caused in filing the first appeals. Perused the applications. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants and learned advocate for the respondents. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed the applications and prayed to reject the applications, as there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. 2. On perusal of the applications and the grounds stated 2026:BHC-AUG:24058 ca9459.09 -2- therein, the applications deserve to be allowed. The applications are accordingly allowed. 3. In so far as the first appeals are concerned, issue notice to the respondents. Learned advocate Mr. Shinde, waives notice for the respondents. With consent of learned advocates for both the sides, the appeals are taken up for final disposal. 4. The first appeals are preferred against the common judgment and award dated 05.02.2001 passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Jalgaon in L.A.R. Nos. 305 of 2000 and 307 of 2000. 5. The land of the claimant in L.A.R. No. 305 of 2000 bearing block No. 75(1) admeasuring 1 H 1 Are and 0.33 R barren land and the land of the claimant in L.A.R. No. 307 of 2000 bearing block No. 75(1) admeasuring 0.74 Are and 0.6 Are Potkharaba, situated at village Taloda, Tq. Chalisgaon, district Jalgaon, were acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation tank at village Taloda, Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, as per the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 04.07.1996. 6. Learned A.G.P. for the appellants pointed out that ca9459.09 -3- compensation amounting to Rs.78,260/- in L.A.R. No. 305 of 2000 and Rs.58,237/- in L.A.R. No. 307 of 2000, including interest, solatium, etc., had already been awarded by the L.A.O. However, the learned Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare and, for 0.33 Are of barren land, compensation @ Rs.650/- per Are was awarded. He submitted that the evidence was not properly appreciated. According to him, a huge amount of compensation has been awarded to the claimants, which is not in accordance with the evidence on record. He, therefore, prayed that the appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be set aside. 7. Learned advocate for the respondents-claimants opposed the appeals and submitted that the evidence adduced by the claimants was properly appreciated by the learned Reference Court, which awarded a reasonable amount of compensation in accordance with the market value of the acquired lands. He further submitted that the claimants' lands were seasonally irrigated, a fact which was not considered by the learned L.A.O. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is just and reasonable, and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and awards. 8. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award alongwith ca9459.09 -4- the record and proceedings, this Court found that there is evidence that the claimants’ lands are seasonally irrigated lands, having high potentiality. This can be seen from 7x12 extract. The conclusion drawn by the learned Reference Court on the basis of the documentary evidence is legal and correct, and no interference is warranted. The evidence is properly appreciated and the market value is drawn on the basis of Exh.16, the sale exemplar of block No. 224 which is at a distance of 2/3 fields from the said land. The said sale exemplar was executed on 10.04.1996 which is three months prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, dated 04.07.1996. Thus, there is acceptable evidence of sale exemplar on record. 9. In the light of above, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award. The appeals therefore, deserve to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/