13-FA-2352-2013.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2352 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Division 1, Through Area Manager, Ahmednagar VERSUS Haribhau Chandrabhan Sathe And Others ...... Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for Appellant-State Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent No.3-State ...... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 21 AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Land Acquisition Reference No.13 of 2001, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare, along with consequential statutory benefits. 3. The lands belonging to the respondents-claimants, admeasuring 2 Hectares 38 R, situated at village Gujale, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, were acquired for the Water Supply Scheme, M.I.D.C. Ghodegaon, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar, under the provisions of 2026:BHC-AUG:38530 13-FA-2352-2013.odt 2 the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The notification under Section 32(2) of the said Act was published on 19.02.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer thereafter passed the award on 07.11.2000 and determined the market value at Rs.58,700/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied, the claimants accepted the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied upon sale instances at Exhibits 33 and 34. The Reference Court, however, relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 34, which is dated 17.10.1996 and relates to 40 R of land sold for Rs.40,000/-. On consideration of the said sale instance, the Reference Court applied an increase of 10% per year and determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. The acquiring body has challenged the said enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exhibit 34 is a post- notification sale transaction and, therefore, could not have been relied upon for determining the market value as on 19.02.1996. He further submits that the Reference Court has not properly explained the basis for arriving at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare by applying 10% increase per year. According to him, the enhancement is excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supports the impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that Exhibit 34 relates to land situated in the same village and is proximate in point of time to the relevant 13-FA-2352-2013.odt 3 date. He further submits that the Reference Court, after considering the said sale instance, applied an increase of 10% per year and determined a reasonable market value. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and, with their able assistance, have gone through the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. The principal question is whether the Reference Court was justified in determining the market value at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare on the basis of Exhibit 34. 9. Exhibit 34 is dated 17.10.1996, whereas the notification under Section 32(2) was published on 19.02.1996. Thus, the said sale transaction is subsequent to the relevant date. However, a subsequent sale transaction, if proximate in time and otherwise shown to be genuine and comparable, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it is subsequent to the notification. 10. In the present case, Exhibit 34 relates to 40 R of land situated in the same village and is within about eight months of the notification. The appellant has not brought on record any material to show that the transaction was not genuine or that the land covered by the sale instance possessed materially superior advantages over the acquired land. 13-FA-2352-2013.odt 4 11. The rate reflected by Exhibit 34 works out to Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare. The Reference Court, considering the said sale instance, applied an increase of 10% per year and determined the market value at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. Though the precise mathematical basis for the ultimate figure is not elaborately set out, the appellant has not produced any better or more comparable sale instance to demonstrate that the market value determined by the Reference Court is excessive. 12. On an overall consideration of the evidence, I find that the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare cannot be said to be so excessive, arbitrary or unsupported by the material on record as would warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The impugned Judgment and Award does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity. Consequently, the Appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 13. The First Appeal is dismissed. 14. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane