Dilwale 1 4-FA-1267-10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2010 Prataprao Govindrao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1226 OF 2010 Bhaskar Govindrao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1266 OF 2010 Govindrao Marotirao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1224 OF 2010 Ganesh Venkatrao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2010 Sanjay Venkatrao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1283 OF 2010 Laxmanrao Namdeorao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors 2026:BHC-AUG:38616 Dilwale 2 4-FA-1267-10.odt WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7601 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1268 OF 2010 Venkatrao Marotrao Patil Died Thr Lrs Ganesh And Anr. VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Nanded And Ors. ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1268 OF 2010 Venkatrao Marotrao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar) Advocate for the acquiring body: Mr. S. S. Dande AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. A. D. Wange ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.08.2026 PER COURT : ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7601 OF 2026 1. Civil Application No. 7601 of 2026 is filed for bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant Venkatrao Marotrao Patil on record. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the Civil Application is allowed. 3. Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks. ORDER IN FIRST APPEALS 4. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997, the appeals are being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective Dilwale 3 4-FA-1267-10.odt parties. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 16/01/2010, 21/01/2010, 18/01/2010, 22/01/2010, 20/01/2010, 15/01/2010 and 19/01/2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli in LAR Nos.42, 43, 123, 41, 40, 122 and 124 of 2004, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation but not as per the claim of the claimants. 6. The lands involved in these appeals were acquired for the purpose of Talani Medium Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 22nd March 1997. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 on 21st February 2000 and determined the market value of the acquired lands. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 7. Mr. Milind M. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Reference Court erroneously applied exorbitant deduction of 25%. He further submits that once the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instances produced by the claimants, it ought not to have applied such excessive deduction of 25% without assigning any valid justification for the same. He submits that such exorbitant deduction is not justifiable, particularly when the sale instances pertains to the agricultural lands and acquired lands were also agricultural lands. He Dilwale 4 4-FA-1267-10.odt further submits that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants are not in respect of distinct, converted or developed plots to apply such exorbitant deduction. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the compensation awarded by the SLAO towards the trees standing on the acquired lands is inadequate. He further submits that the SLAO has awarded compensation of Rs.12,086/- towards the trees standing in survey no.44/2 and the same was meagre. He further submit that there is no dispute regarding the number of trees standing on the acquired lands and thus, appropriate compensation ought to have been awarded towards such trees. He further submits that learned Reference Court erroneously refused to enhance the compensation without any reasonable justification. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeals. 9. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Dande, learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body, submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale instances and has applied appropriate deduction of only 25%. He further submits that the sale instances pertained to comparatively small pieces of land whereas the acquired land forms a considerable portion of land. He further submits that ordinarily a higher deduction could have been applied but the deduction of 25% applied by the learned Reference Court is reasonable and not exorbitant. The learned counsel further submits that the claimants had not produced any independent evidence before the learned Reference Court regarding the Dilwale 5 4-FA-1267-10.odt valuation of the trees and, therefore, the learned Reference Court was justified in refusing to enhance the compensation under the said head. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the appeals. 10. Mr. A. D. Wange, learned AGP for the State adopted the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the acquiring body. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their able assistance and having gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as the record and proceedings. The limited questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are: (i) Whether the learned Reference Court was justified in applying deduction of 25% while determining the market value on the basis of the sale instances relied upon by the claimants; and (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation towards the trees standing on the acquired lands. 12. So far as the deduction of 25% is concerned, admittedly, the sale instances dated 26.06.1996 and 28.06.1996 at Exhibits 41 and 42 respectively relied upon by the claimants pertain to agricultural lands. However, the lands covered under the said sale instances were comparatively smaller in area than the acquired lands. The learned Reference Court, therefore, applied deduction of 25% while determining the market value of the acquired lands. Considering the nature of the sale instances and the extent of the lands involved therein, I do not find that the deduction of 25% applied by the Dilwale 6 4-FA-1267-10.odt learned Reference Court is excessive or unjustified. On the contrary, the deduction applied is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. 13. So far as the claim for enhancement of compensation towards the trees is concerned, the learned Reference Court has recorded a finding that the claimants did not adduce any independent evidence regarding the valuation of the trees. In the absence of such evidence, the learned Reference Court was justified in declining to enhance the compensation awarded towards the trees. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. 15. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) All the First Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. (ii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE