Dilwale 1 910-FA-456-12.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2012 Rambhau Dattatraya Kulkarni Died Through Lrs Rekha & Ors. VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra & Anr ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. P. P. More h/f Mr. R. J. Nirmal AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. S. Dande Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. P. R. Tandale ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 01.09.2026 PER COURT : 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2000, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellants-original claimants are challenging the judgment and award dated 09.11.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, whereby the reference came to be dismissed. 3. The land bearing Gut No. 141, admeasuring 90 R, was acquired for the Percolation Tank at Pimpalgaon (Amba). The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11th June 1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, upon passing the award, granted compensation at the rate of 6,600/- per acre. The claimants claimed ₹ compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the amount 2026:BHC-AUG:40819 Dilwale 2 910-FA-456-12.odt of compensation awarded, the claimants filed an application before the Collector for making a reference to the Civil Court for determination of the proper market value of the acquired land. But the learned Reference Court dismissed the Reference. 4. Mr. P. P. More, learned counsel holding for Mr. R. J. Nirmal, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 18 pertaining to village Bhosa. As per the said sale instance, land admeasuring 79 R, along with 2 R of land having a one-fourth share in a well, was sold for a consideration of 56,000/-. The learned Reference ₹ Court, however, erroneously discarded the said sale instance by observing that it related only to 2 R of land and that the sale transaction was in respect of land situated in a different village and no map was filed by the claimants. 5. Per contra, Mr. Tandale, learned counsel for the acquiring body and Mr. Dande, learned AGP for the State opposed the prayer for interference with the impugned award. They submit that, as the claimants failed to file sale instance from village Pimpalgaon (Amba), learned Reference Court has rightly rejected the reference. Therefore, they pray to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel and upon perusal of the record and proceedings with their assistance, it reveals that the claimants had produced sale instance at Exhibit 18, Dilwale 3 910-FA-456-12.odt pertaining to village Bhosa, whereby land adm. 81R including 2R land irrigated by well was sold for Rs.56,000/-. It appears that the distance between the land covered by the sale instance and the acquired land is hardly one kilometre. The two villages are adjacent to each other. Though the claimants had not produced any documentary evidence such as village map or Gut map on record in support of the said assertion, the same was not controverted by the acquiring body. In the circumstances, the learned Reference Court was not justified in discarding the sale instance merely on the ground that the transaction pertained to land situated in a different village. 7. As regards the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court that the sale instance at Exhibit 18 related only to 2 R of land, the said finding is not borne out by the record. On perusal of the sale deed, it appears that, under the said transaction, 79 R of land along with 2 R of land having a one-fourth share in the well was sold for a consideration of 56,000/-. Thus, the transaction was not confined merely to 2 R of land, ₹ as observed by the learned Reference Court. 8. The finding recorded by the learned Reference Court in that regard is, therefore, perverse and contrary to the documentary evidence on record. The sale instance at Exhibit 18 relates to 81 R of land and, considering the proximity of the land covered by the sale instance to the acquired land, the said transaction deserves consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. Dilwale 4 910-FA-456-12.odt 9. The consideration reflected in the sale instance is 56,000/-. After ₹ excluding the appropriate value attributable to the 2 R portion having a one-fourth share in the well, the value attributable to the remaining agricultural land would have to be worked out. The acquired land, however, is situated at village Pimplegaon (Amba), whereas the sale instance pertains to village Bhosa. Some deduction, therefore, would be required on account of the difference in location and other relevant factors. 10. As the land covered under sale instance at Exhibit 18 contained 2R land irrigated by well, the market value of the said 2R irrigated land must be deducted i.e. Rs.2765/- from total consideration of the sale instance i.e. Rs.56,000/-, whereby the value would come to Rs.53,235/- for 79R. Upon appropriate calculation, the value of 1R would work out to Rs.674/- per R i.e. Rs.26,954/- per acre. 11. Having regard to the nature of the acquired land and the material placed on record, a deduction of 30% would, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be appropriate, whereby market value would come to Rs.18,868/- per acre, rounded up to Rs.19,000/- per acre. Hence, I pass following order: ORDER I. First Appeal is partly allowed. II. The claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.19,000/- per acre and to that extent impugned award stands Dilwale 5 910-FA-456-12.odt modified. III. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest as per Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. IV. Rest of the impugned award stands confirmed. V. The impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. VI. Deficit Court fee be paid. VII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, are disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE