fa3319.11- -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3319 OF 2011 Shahadeo Kisan Waghmare (Died through L.Rs. Kamalbai Shahadeo Waghmare and another) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3320 OF 2011 Babu Dagadu Mote VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3321 OF 2011 Babita Dharmraj Kadam VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3322 OF 2011 Vishnu Prabhu Kadam VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another ….. Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Vilas M. Humbe AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S. B. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Vanita H. Sangole ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. All these appeals are preferred against the judgments and awards passed by the learned Reference Court at Beed, as shown in 2026:BHC-AUG:8051 fa3319.11- -2- the following chart:- Sr. No. L.A.R. No. F.A. No. Date of judgment 1 46 of 2006 3319 of 2011 25.04.2006 2 49 of 2006 3320 of 2011 25.04.2006 3 176 of 2006 3321 of 2011 26.04.2006 4 113 of 2006 3322 of 2011 26.04.2006 2. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellants’ lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation tank at Shindewari, under village Ranjani, Tq. Georai district Beed, by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “L.A. Act”) on 05.08.1997. The final award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short “L.A.O.”) on 31.01.1999. 3. Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out pleadings, evidence, grounds of objection of appeals and the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court. He further pointed out that the lands of the appellants in appeal No. 3319 of 2011 is admittedly irrigated land and having water facility through well, situated in block No. 436. He further submitted that the learned Reference court has not considered the basic principle of awarding compensation that the highest value of sale exemplar is to be relied upon. However, the fa3319.11- -3- learned Reference Court relied upon sale exemplar at Exh.18 for deciding the L.A.R. No. 46 of 2006. There are five sale exemplars out of which sale exemplar at Exh.21 is bonafide and comparable sale exemplar, which can be safely relied upon. However, it was not properly considered. He submitted that at the most the some percentage of amount can be reduced for small size of land in the sale exemplar Exh.21 and also the purchaser is adjacent i.e. abutting land owner of the land in that sale exemplar. He submitted to allow the appeals. 4. Learned A.G.P. for the respondent State and learned advocate for respondent No.2 acquiring body strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the sale exemplars at Exh. 21 and 23 cannot be relied upon. The sale exemplar Exh.21 is of a small portion of land of 11 Are. The acquired lands of the claimants are more than 3 Hectares. The sale exemplar Exh.23 also cannot be relied upon because it is a sale exemplar of 54 Are land, which is seasonal irrigated land. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Reference Court is legal and correct and no interference is warranted in it. 5. Perused the record and proceedings, particularly the pleadings, evidence, grounds of objections and the reasons and fa3319.11- -4- findings in the impugned judgment and award. The Learned Reference Court has relied upon the decision of the Land Reference No. 42 of 2006 which is comparable sale exemplar on record. The Reference Court has to rely upon the highest sale consideration. In the case in hand, the sale exemplar at Exh.21 dated 26.04.1994 for dry land admeasuring 11 Are for Rs.20,000/- i.e. Rs.1818/- per Are, sold three years prior to the said acquisition proceeding. It is bonafide and comparable sale exemplar. However, considering the small size of the 11 Are land and the fact that one of the boundaries in the sale exemplar at Exh.21 shows that the purchaser is the contiguous owner of the said land, he must have paid the higher amount for it. Therefore, 35% amount can be deducted on these two counts. If 35% amount is deducted, it comes to Rs.1182/- per Are. The sale exemplar Exh.21 is dated 26.4.1994 and the claimants land was acquired by notification dated 05.08.1997. Thus, for three years the claimant is entitled for cumulative escalation of the properties of the appellants. If it is added then the claimant is entitled for Rs.1693/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.3386/- per Are for irrigated land. 6. However, the claimants in appeal No. 3319 of 2011 have established that there is well situated in block No. 309/436 for which the claimants have got their E-statement, which is a part and parcel fa3319.11- -5- of the award passed by the L.A.O. Therefore, the claimants in first appeal No. 3319 of 2011 are entitled for compensation of Rs.3386/- per Are. The claimants in first appeal No. 3319 of 2011, for Potkharaba/barren land, admeasuring 04 Are, entitled for compensation of Rs.846/- per Are. 7. In view of above, the learned Reference court erred in awarding the inadequate amount of compensation without considering comparable sale exemplar on record. The appeals therefore, deserve to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserve to be partly set aside. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I. The first appeals are partly allowed. II. The impugned common judgments and awards are partly set aside and modified as under:- a) The appellants in first appeal No. 3319 of 2011 are entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.3386/- per Are for 46 Are and Rs.846/- per Are for 04 Are land which is Potkharaba land, including amount of compensation which was awarded and received by the appellant, with all other statutory benefits like additional component, interest and solatium as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. b) The appellants in first appeal Nos. b) The appellants in first appeal Nos. 3320 of 2011, 3321 of 2011 and 3322 of 2011 are entitled to enhanced fa3319.11- -6- compensation @ Rs.1693/- per Are for non irrigated lands except the Potkharaba/barren land admeasuring 25 Are in first appeal No. 3322 of 2011, for which the appellants in the said appeal are entitled to Rs.846/- per Are, including amount of compensation which was awarded and received by the appellants, with all other statutory benefits like additional component, interest and solatium as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. III) The enhanced amount of compensation with interest and other statutory benefits shall be deposited in this court within a period of six months from today and on payment of deficit Court fee, if any, it be paid to the appellants. IV) It is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled for interest amount for the period of delay, (if any) which was condoned by this Court while admitting the appeal. V) The award be drawn up accordingly. VI) The record and proceedings be sent back. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/