FA 1875/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 10 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1875 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9678 OF 2007 IN FA/1875/2010 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR VERSUS MUKHTYARSING SUPADU PATIL ... AGP for State/Appellant : Mr. D.R. Korde Advocate for appellant/acquiring body : Mr. A.D. Pawar … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 24, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1998, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the acquiring body and the State. 2. By this appeal, the State and the acquiring body assail the judgment and award dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jalgaon in LAR No. 104/2001, whereby the reference court has enhanced the compensation. 3. The land of the claimant admeasuring 74 R. from Gat No. 166/2 situated at village Dharagir, Tal. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon was acquired for the purpose of Dharagir medium project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28.2.1998. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on 28.7.2000. As the SLAO has granted very meager compensation, being aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed an application before the Collector for proper determination of the market value of the acquired land under section 18 of the Act. Before 2026:BHC-AUG:38551 FA 1875/10 2 the reference court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance as well as valuer’s report. The learned reference court after considering the valuer’s report determined the market value for 112 acquired trees and enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per H. for 40 R. acquired land, which was irrigated land. No compensation was paid for 34 R. land in which trees were standing. Being aggrieved by the same the State as well as acquiring body preferred the the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Korde and Mr. Ajay Pawar, learned counsel for the State and the acquiring body, respectively. They submit that there is difference between the number of trees mentioned by the SLAO in his award and in valuer’s report. Even the SLAO has determined the compensation for 112 trees which is excessive in nature and therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. None appears for the respondent/claimant though served. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for State and acquiring body, with their assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and impugned judgment and award of the reference court. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the SLAO has shown more number of trees than shown by the private valuer and by applying multiplier of 10, the reference court has determined the compensation for trees. It is not the case of the acquiring body that no trees were acquired, infact less number of trees were shown as per the valuer’s report. As far as award of SLAO is concerned, the SLAO has shown more number of trees and therefore, I find that even the SLAO has determined the market value of the acquired land as irrigated land and no compensation is paid for 34 R. land on which trees were shown. Therefore, I hold that the reference court has not committed any error while FA 1875/10 3 enhancing the compensation. 7. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/