CA 1175/09 & Ors. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 49 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1175 OF 2009 IN RC/379/2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6795 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. 10983 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7235 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1178 OF 2009 IN RC/377/2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6796 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. 10979 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7229 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1177 OF 2009 IN RC/375/2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6797 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. 10985 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7223 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1179 OF 2009 IN RC/381/2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6798 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. 10990 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7237 OF 2006 ... THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS KAMALBAI HANMANT SHINDE ... AGP for Applicant/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 07, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As acquisition proceeding is of the year 1989, heard finally with the consent of the learned AGP for the State/applicants. None for the respondents/claimants. 2. In civil applications filed for delay condonation caused in filing the restoration applications in first appeals, for the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed. Delay is condoned. The order dismissing the appeals is quashed and set aside. First appeals are restored. Delay applications and restoration applications are allowed and 2026:BHC-AUG:27803 CA 1175/09 & Ors. 2 disposed of accordingly. 3. In civil applications filed for delay condonation caused in filing the first appeals, for the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed. Delay is condoned. 4. In first appeals, heard the learned AGP Mr. B.A. Shinde for appellants/State. Non appears for respondents/original claimants. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.7.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in LAR Nos. 195, 187, 179 and 183 of 2004, the State and acquiring body have preferred the present appeals, whereby the reference court has enhanced the compensation. 6. The State has acquired the lands of the original claimants/respondents herein for the purpose of Benetura Project Murum. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 1.1.1989. The possession of the lands of the claimants were taken in 1987 before passing the award dated 26.9.1992 by Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). The SLAO has passed the award and granted compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimants filed above references in which the reference court has enhanced the compensation and granted compensation of RS. 4,21,500/- in LAR No. 195/2004, Rs.3,50,100/- in LAR No. 187/2004, Rs.1,44,450/- in LAR No. 179/2004 and Rs.1,46,800/- in LAR No. 183/2004. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the reference court, the present appeals are filed. 7. Mr. B.S. Shinde, learned AGP submits that the reference court has wrongly relied upon the valuer’s report as the valuer’s report was obtained after the period of five years after acquisition. He further submits that the entire record was prepared by the claimants with a view to get higher price CA 1175/09 & Ors. 3 for their acquired lands. He submits that when the compensation was granted for the acquired lands which include structure, well, pipeline, no separate compensation can be granted for structure, well and pipeline and other things. He submits that therefore the reference court has committed error while considering the reference and prayed to allow the appeals. 8. I have gone through the copy of order of the reference court. On perusal of the order of the reference court, it is revealed that the reference court while determining quantum of compensation has considered that in LAR No. 181/2004 there were trees, well, pipeline in the acquired lands of the claimant. The reference court has also considered the sale instance, Exh. 51 which shows that the land was sold for Rs.75000/- per Acre in the year 1985. Even the reference court has considered the valuer’s report as well as 7/12 extract, Exh. 65. I have gone through the 7/12 extract, Exh. 65 wherein it was specifically mentioned about existence of bore well, stone bund, pipeline and the trees were also shown in the 7/12 extract. Considering all above, I find that the reference court has considered the comparable sale transactions and arrived at market rate of the acquired lands. Considering all that I find that the reference court has taken reasonable view while determining the market value of the acquired lands. Even after going through the record, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the reference court. So I hold that no interference is warranted in the judgment and award of the reference court. 9. The learned AGP for the appellants submits that the reference court has granted interest and other statutory benefits from the date of taking over the possession of the acquired lands and the same is contrary in view CA 1175/09 & Ors. 4 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. 10. Considering the above, I pass the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeals are partly allowed. (II) The claimants shall be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). (III) Rest of the award is maintained. (IV) Award is modified accordingly. (V) Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/