1 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2014 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vivekanand B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2014 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Patil Dattatray D. Sarawade, Advocate for Respondent No.1. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2014 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vivekanand B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3. … AND NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD FIRST APPEAL NO.302 OF 2014 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND 2026:BHC-AUG:31772 2 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26 ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … AND NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD FIRST APPEAL NO.299 OF 2014 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … AND 26 FIRST APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2014 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Vivekanand B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2004, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeals, the Appellant-acquiring body is aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR 3 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26 Nos.621/2007, 619/2007, 617/2007, 620/2007, 618/2007 and 78/2008, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation in favour of the Claimants. 3. Brief facts of the present cases:- Sr. No. Particulars Dates/Numbers/Amounts 1 Land Acquisition File No. 2003/Acqui/CR-54 2 Date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) 18.10.2004 3 Date of taking over possession 01.04.2004 4 Date of Award 17.01.2006 5 Date of Notification under Section 12(2) of the Act. 20.11.2006 6 References made to LAO. 27.12.2006 7 Compensation paid @ Rs.650/- per R. 8 Enhancement sought Rs.25,000/- per R. . The Claimants, being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act contending that the compensation awarded for the acquired land was inadequate. The Claimants relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits-38 and 39. As regards the sale instance below Exhibit-39, the same was a post-notification transaction and, therefore, the learned Reference Court did not place reliance upon it. While determining the market value, the learned Reference Court relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR No.610 of 4 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26 2008 pertaining to the same project. Since the notification in the said reference was issued one year subsequent to the present notification, the learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per R for the acquired land. 4. Mr. Sonpawale, learned Advocate for the Appellant-acquiring body, submits that the learned Reference Court has erroneously relied upon LAR No.610 of 2008, which pertains to a different village situated in a different direction. According to him, the learned Reference Court ought to have determined the market value on the basis of the sale instances produced by the Claimants instead of relying upon an award relating to another village. He submits that in LAR No.610 of 2008, compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per R was granted and only because the notification in the present case was prior by one year, the learned Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs.8,000/- per R, which is unsustainable. He further submits that the interest awarded by the learned Reference Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. 5. Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the original Claimants, submits that the land required for the Shekhapur Water Reservoir project was acquired from different villages, namely Shekhapur and Gavsud. Though separate notifications under Section 4 5 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26 of the Act were issued for the two villages, the acquisition was for one and the same project. He submits that in LAR No.610 of 2008, pertaining to village Gavsud, the notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 2005, whereas in the present case, the notification under Section 4 was published in the year 2004. Therefore, considering the earlier notification in the present case, the learned Reference Court rightly granted compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per R by enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,000/- over what was awarded in LAR No.610 of 2008. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted. 6. He further submits that the sale instances reflected in Index- II were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Those sale transactions of the years 2002 and 2003 indicate market rates ranging from Rs.470/- to Rs.4,375/- per R. According to him, at the highest, the Claimants would be entitled only to the rates reflected in those sale deeds and not to the enhanced compensation granted by the learned Reference Court. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings as well as the copies of the sale instances at Exhibits-38 and 39. It is an admitted position that for the same project, lands from different villages were acquired under separate notifications. In the present case, the land 6 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26 situated at village Shekhapur came to be acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 4 dated 18.10.2004, whereas in LAR No.610 of 2008, the notification was issued in the year 2005 in respect of village Gavsud. 8. Though it is true that an award passed by the Reference Court cannot be treated as a binding precedent, the same can certainly be considered as a relevant piece of evidence while determining the market value in respect of acquisitions made for the very same project. Once the learned Reference Court had determined the market value for lands acquired for the same project, merely because the lands were situated in different villages would not render the earlier award wholly irrelevant. Therefore, I find that the learned Reference Court was justified in taking guidance from the award passed in LAR No.610 of 2008 and enhancing the compensation accordingly. 9. However, so far as the award of interest is concerned, the impugned judgment requires modification. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). Hence, I process to pass the following order:- ORDER (i) The present appeals are partly allowed. 7 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26 (ii) The judgments and awards dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR Nos.621/2007, 619/2007, 617/2007, 620/2007, 618/2007 and 78/2008 are modified to the extent that the Claimants would be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act only from the date of the award as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). (iii) Rest of the award remains unaltered. (iv) Award be drawn accordingly. (v) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. 10. It is made clear that if any appeal filed by the Claimants seeking further enhancement of compensation is pending, the dismissal of the present appeals shall not come in their way. The observations made herein are confined to the present appeals and shall not operate as an impediment in the said proceedings. The Claimants shall independently establish their entitlement to any further enhancement in accordance with law. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef