FA No. 614/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 50 FIRST APPEAL NO. 614 OF 2009 VENKAT BAGWANRAO MUSANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S S Halkude AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 17, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1994, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment and award dated 23.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur Camp at Udgir in LAR No. 3004/2001, for further enhancement of compensation. 3. The land of the claimant admeasuring 137 R. from Gat No. 86 situated at village Jaibhachiwadi, Tal. Udgir, District Latur was acquired for construction of percolation tank at village Jaibhachiwadi. The possession of the land was taken over in the year 1987 and to that effect the reference court has recorded finding that the possession of the acquired land was taken on 15.5.1987 and the land to the extent of 137 R. from Gat No. 86 of the present appellant was acquired. The SLAO has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.250/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the meager compensation granted by the SLAO, the claimant filed above reference under section 18 of the Act. The reference court has 2026:BHC-AUG:38173 FA No. 614/09 2 enhanced the compensation at the the rate of Rs.1000/- per R. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. S.S. Halkude, learned counsel for claimant submits that after considering the sale instance below Exh. 16 and the order passed in LAR No. 777/1995, Exh. 19, the reference court has wrongly determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per R. Therefore, Mr. S.S. Halkude, learned counsel for original claimants submits that as the lands involved in LAR No. 777/1995 is from the same notification and for the same project and from the same Gat number, the reference court ought to have determined the compensation in view of the order in LAR No. 777/1995. He further submits that as this order is passed on 18.2.1998, the claimants are entitled to receive escalation of 10% for every year. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments and orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5311/2012 (arising out of SLP © No. 34284/2011) in the case of Ahsanul Hoda Vs. State of Bihar dated 1.7.2013, Civil Appeal Nos. 4028-4029/2007 in the case of Sardar Jogendra Singh (D) by LRs. Vs. State of UP & Anr. dated 28.8.2008 and General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. Reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745 and contended that the claimants are entitled to receive the cumulative escalation for every year. In the present case section 4 notification was published on 4.8.1994. The order passed in LAR No. 777/95 is dated 18.2.1998 and in that LAR section 4 notification was published on 24.5.1990. He submits that considering the above as in the present case notification under section 4 was published in the year 1994, the claimants are entitled to receive cumulative escalation for four years on the basis of above LAR. He therefore prays to allow the appeal. FA No. 614/09 3 5. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP for State submits that as regards the order in LAR No. 777/1995 is concerned, even though that is from the same village, that cannot be considered as binding precedent as the claimant has to prove his own case by leading evidence. He has invited my attention to that LAR wherein the reference court relied upon the sale instance from village Loni which is 2 k.m. away from the present land which was acquired from village Jaibhachiwadi and therefore, only because the reference court has decided the reference from the same village, that cannot be considered as comparable sale instance while determining the market value of acquired land. He further submits that as regards cumulative escalation is concerned that cannot be by way of right and the same has to be determined by the concerned court by considering the evidence led by the claimant. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) and Ors., reported in (2024) 13 SCC 805 and Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh Vs. Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division Yavatmal and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3185. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and judgment and award of the reference court. After going through the record and proceeding, I find that the contention of the claimant cannot be accepted for the reasons that in earlier round i.e. in LAR No. 777/1995 the lands were acquired on 24.5.1990 and here in the present case possession was taken over in the year 1987. It further revealed that even the sale instance on which the reference court relied in LAR No. 777/1995 was of the year 1990 FA No. 614/09 4 and that was of the village Loni and therefore, in this case, though the possession was taken in the year 1987, the sale instance used in LAR No. 777/1995 cannot be considered as comparable sale instance while determining the market value. 7. Even in the present case also the reference court has considered the sale instance, Exh. 16, which is from village Shelgaon, which is near to Udgir and not from village Jaibhachiwadi. Therefore, considering the above, the reference court has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land and therefore, I hold that no case is made out by the claimant for further enhancement. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and same is dismissed. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/