247.fa275.2013jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 275 OF 2013 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Wardha .. Appellant Versus 1. Shatrughnya Kaluram Tamgadge Aged about 52 years, Occupation : Cultivator, R/o. Sakhara, Tq. Samudrapur, District – Wardha .. Respondents 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through the District Collector, Wardha 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works, Wardha Mr. Vinay Dahat, Advocate h/f Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant. Mr. H.D. Dubey, AGP for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. C.R. Najbile, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR , J. DATED : 10.07.2026 JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Dahat, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Dubey, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Najbile, learned counsel for respondent No.1. PAGE 1 OF 5 2026:BHC-NAG:8763 247.fa275.2013jud.odt (2) The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. (3) This is an appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 23.12.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in L.A.C.No.321/2005. (4) Mr.Vinay Dahat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25.02.1999 for acquisition of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.317 of respondent No.1 situated at Mauza Sakhara, Tq.Samudrapur, District Wardha admeasuring 0.50HR of land for construction of Lai Nala Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 16.03.2002, thereby granting compensation at the rate of Rs.51,640/- per hectare and paid compensation of Rs.27,350/-. (5) Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants had filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation. Learned Reference Court granted PAGE 2 OF 5 247.fa275.2013jud.odt amount of Rs.72,055/- to the claimants by way of enhanced market value/compensation. (6) Being aggrieved by the said enhancement, the appellant-Corporation approached this Court by filing this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to Mr. Dahat, learned counsel for the appellant, the Reference Court has committed serious error in holding that compensation granted by Land Acquisition Officer as inadequate without there being any evidence. (7) He further submits that the claimants have not proved their case for enhancement of compensation. The sale instances considered by the Reference Court are particularly for different villages. The reference Court has enhanced the amount on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Reference Court be quashed and award passed by Land Acquisition Officer be maintained. (8) Mr. C.R.Najbile, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the instant appeal and stated that though PAGE 3 OF 5 247.fa275.2013jud.odt the Reference Court has granted total compensation of Rs.72,055/-, the same is granted after considering the evidence in proper perspective. He further submits that judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is reasonable. He fairly states that the respondent/claimant has not filed any cross-objection. He further submits that sale instances of the available nearby area came to be considered and as such, it cannot be held that the Reference Court has committed any error by passing the impugned judgment and award. He, therefore, states that said judgment and award be maintained. (9) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order passed by the learned Reference Court, it is evident that the respondent/claimant had produced on record the sale instance/sale deed at Exh.24 of Mouza Kora which is at a distance of 2 k.m. from the acquired land. The Reference Court has considered the sale instances for the purpose of determining the market value as the same was within the perimeters 5 k.m. from the project. Nothing contrary was produced on record to upset the said findings of the Reference Court and therefore, the Reference Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare required to PAGE 4 OF 5 247.fa275.2013jud.odt be granted to the claimant. The judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court is, therefore, on the basis of appropriate reasoning and hence, as no valid and strong grounds brought before this Court to upset the findings, the same is required to be maintained. (10) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The balance amount along with interest, if any, be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant. [ SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ] Prity PAGE 5 OF 5