904-FA-1666-2009.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1666 OF 2009 Sabhaji S/o. Krishana Manale VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9323 OF 2026 IN FA/1666/2009 Sambhaji Krishana Manale Died Through Lrs Udhav Died Thr Lrs Suman And Ors. VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra , Through Collector, Osmanabad And Ors. ... Mr. V. V. Ingale fpr the Appellant. Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 AUGUST 2026 P. C.: 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1995, the Appeal is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant-original claimant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15th April 2009 passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No.136/2007, whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation, but has not granted the compensation as claimed by the claimant. 3. The land of the claimants admeasuring 1 hectare 55R from Gat Nos.60/3 and 60 was acquired for the purpose of resettlement of earthquake affected persons. The notification under Section 4 came to be issued on 10th Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:41108 904-FA-1666-2009.doc January 1994 and 31st August 1995. The awards under Section 11 were passed on 31st May 1994 and 24th May 1996 respectively. The LAO awarded compensation @Rs.240/- and Rs.350/- per R. The claimants sought higher compensation. The learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.550/- per R by relying upon award passed in LAR No.648/2000 which was placed on record at Exh.55. 4. Mr. Ingale, learned counsel for the claimants submits that in peculiar facts of the present case, there are two notifications under Section 4 dated 10th January 1994 and 24th May 1996, accordingly two awards under Section 11 were passed dated 29th March 1994 and 24th May 1996 in respect of Gat Nos.60/3 and 60 respectively. The claimants had filed present LAR No.136/2007 against the award passed under Section 11 dated 29th March 1994 in respect of Gat No.60/3. He submits that the claimants had relied upon sale instances at Exh.43, 44, 59 and 60 from villages Mangrul, Killari, Nimbala Daud (same village) and Nandurga respectively. He submits that despite there being sale instance from the same village as well as adjacent villages, the learned Reference Court relied only upon previous award passed in LAR No.648/2000 and determined the compensation. Therefore, he prays to grant compensation at the rate available in those sale instances. 5. Per contra, learned AGP heavily relied upon the award passed under Section 11 dated 29th March 1996, in respect of Gat No.60/3 by contending that the same was a consent award. To substantiate his contention, he invited Shubham 904-FA-1666-2009.doc my attention to the LAO award dated 29th March 1996 and submitted that the claimants had played fraud on the Court by suppressing the fact that the said award was a consent award. Despite the said award being a consent award, reference against the same was filed which is impermissible under the law. To further fortify his contention, he invited my attention to the copy of CC at Exh.33 which reveals that the claimants had received the amount of compensation. 6. He further submits that the application for referring the matter to the learned Reference Court was filed by the claimants before the LAO by erroneously contending that lesser area was shown in the award of LAO which is nothing but an excuse to substantiate their claim for enhancement. Learned AGP further submits that the claim Petition nowhere avers that there were two awards passed by the LAO in respect of which the claim Petition was filed. Despite the award being passed through consent, the claimants have filed the reference. He fairly submits that the said aspect has not been brought before the learned Reference Court by the Respondents even and no Appeal has been filed by the State/acquiring body. He eventually submits that such suppression by the claimants warrants dismissal of the present Appeal by this Court with heavy costs. 7. In turn, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claim Petition was filed in respect of both the Gat numbers i.e. Gat Nos.60/3 and 60 which can be seen in the impugned award also. He further submits that an Shubham 904-FA-1666-2009.doc amendment application was filed by the claimants for incorporating the claim for enhancement in respect of Gat No.60 and therefore, the impugned award mentions both the Gat numbers. 8. Having considered the rival submissions of both the counsel and upon verification of the record it is revealed that the award at Exh.24 dated 29th March 1994 in respect of Gat No.60/3 is a consent award, which cannot be challenged by filing reference. I have also gone through reference Petition filed against that award. It nowhere mentions that the same has been filed challenging the acquisition of both the Gat numbers i.e. Gat No.60/3 and 60. I have personally verified the record and proceeding to reveal whether any amendment application as stated by the learned counsel for the claimants has been filed or not. No such amendment application has been filed for incorporating the claim for enhancement in respect of Gat No.60. Thus, the only award that has been challenged by the claimants is in respect of Gat No.60 which is a consent award. Said fact has not been noticed by the learned Reference Court. Law does not permit challenging a consent award. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the present Appeal, which is founded upon a consent award. 9. Hence, the Appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham