910-FA-920-2010.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 920 OF 2010 Assistant Engineer (c) Mseb (now Msedcl) Civil Construction Sub Divn Behind Usha Kiran Talkies Latu VERSUS Nandkumar Dnyanoba Darphalkar And Anr ... Mr. A. M. Gaikwad for the Appellant. Mr. Sachin Pahale for Respondent No.1. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026 P. C.: 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1991, the Appeal is being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant-acquiring body is challenging the judgment and award dated 2nd May 2008, passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-2, Latur in LAR No.576 of 1996 whereby enhanced compensation came to be granted to the claimants. 3. The land of the claimants was acquired for the purpose of installation of 33 KV sub-station at village Matola Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. The notification under Section 4 was published on 11th November 1991, the possession was taken prior to notification under Section 4 on 25th January 1991, award was passed on 11th December 1994 thereby awarding compensation @Rs.10/- Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:36401 910-FA-920-2010.doc per sq. mt., the claimants had claimed compensation @Rs.15/- per sq. ft. The learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.6/- per sq. ft. 4. The learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that the learned Reference Court has erroneously relied upon sale instances below Exhs.22, 23 and 24 while determining market value of the acquired land @Rs.6/- per sq. ft. He further submits that once the claimants themselves have mentioned in the claim petition about 20% area to be deducted towards development expenses, the learned Reference Court ought not have granted compensation for the whole acquired land. Therefore, he submits that the impugned award requires modification to the extent of deducting 20% area while determining enhanced compensation. He further submits that sale instances below Exhs.23 and 24 pertain to house properties whereas the acquired land is an agricultural land. Therefore, the learned Reference Court ought not have relied upon said sale instances. Therefore, he prays to allow the First Appeal and quashed the impugned award. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant supports the impugned award by contending that though the claimants have themselves deducted 20% area while claiming enhanced compensation, the same shall not be regarded as consent. Once the land was acquired for installation of electicity sub-station, such deduction of 20% towards development expenses is wholly unwarranted, though the claimants had mentioned in claim petition about such deduction while claiming compensation. The learned Reference Court Shubham 910-FA-920-2010.doc has rightly granted enhanced compensation for the whole acquired land by ignoring the fact that the claimants had deducted 20% area towards development expenses. By relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer Visakhapatnam Municpality, Visakhapatnam [(1991) 4 SCC 506], he prays to dismiss the First Appeal. 6. Having heard rival submissions of the learned counsel and perusing the record, the claimants mentioned about deduction of 20% area from the acquired land towards development expenses, but the same cannot be said to be an explicit consent given by the claimants and the learned Reference Court has to decide the reference by dwelling into the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter, the learned Reference Court has granted enhancement for the whole acquired land of 80R by considering that there is no necessity to deduct 20% area towards development expenses, which in my opinion is appropriate. 7. The learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instances below Exhs.22, 23 and 24 dated 16th April 1991, 6th December 1989 and 27th May 1991, which were prior to Section 4 notification, wherein the market value was Rs.5/- per sq. ft. and Rs.6/- per sq. ft. The learned Reference Court considered the market value of the whole acquired land @Rs.6/- per sq. ft. The learned Reference Court has recorded finding that the acquired land is already a developed land and thus there is no need to deduct 20% area Shubham 910-FA-920-2010.doc towards development. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned award warrants no interfere. 8. The First Appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham