1 66 FA 1016.14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2014 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Taq. & Dist. Yavatmal. .. Appellant ..Versus.. 1. Bhavarimal Kesarimal Todarwal (Dead) Aged : Major, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon, Districtg-Yavtmal. L.Rs. brought on record. (i) Navratbai Bhavarimal Todarwal (Dead) Aged Major. (ii) Ramesh Bhavarimal Todarwal (Dead) Aged Major. Both R/o. Plot No.250 & 251, Punarvasan, Dehni Phata, Mouza-Pahur, Tah. Babhulgaon, Distt.Yavatmal. Ramesh Bhawarilal Todarwal, Through its Legal Heirs. (i) Rakhi Ramesh Todarwal, aged about 45 years. (ii) Lokesh Ramesh Todarwal, Aged about 24 years. Both R/o. Pahur, Tah. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal. 2026:BHC-NAG:2955 2 66 FA 1016.14 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works No.2, Yavatmal. .. Respondents ……………. Shri Amol B. Patil, Advocate for Appellant Ms. Pranita N. Lakhani, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. …………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 17.02.2026. JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-acquiring body approached before this court challenging the judgment and award dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in L.A.C. No.770/2006. 2. In the present appeal, the case of the present respondents was that they being the owner of Bhukhand No.601, 761 and 566 which was acquired by the non-applicant no.2 having open plots and houses standing thereon at village Pahur for the purpose of Bembla Project, has awarded the 3 66 FA 1016.14 compensation of Rs.3,41,574/- only. 3. The Respondent-1, being dissatisfied with that compensation, preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that Land Acquisition Officer has not considered quality of construction, material used and surrounding position. To demonstrate the prevailing market rate relied upon sale transactions Exh-27 to 29. Also filed record of right in respect of acquired plots Exh- 21 to 23. The respondents-claimants in support of their submission has examined himself and demonstrate that how they are entitled for the enhancement of the compensation. 4. The learned reference court, by the impugned order, considered the evidence and the documentary proof which was made available by the claimants, has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq. meter for open plot no.601 ad-measuring 59.10 sq. meter, plot no.761 ad-measuring 66.30 sq. meter, plot no.566 ad-measuring 80.50 sq. Meter. And Rs.3000/- per sq. meter for constructed area ad-measuring 46.45 sq. meter for plot no.601 and Rs.6,000/- per sq. meter for 4 66 FA 1016.14 constructed area ad-measuring 43.98 sq. meter for plot no.566 from village Pahur. 5. The present appellant approached before this Court mainly on the ground that the sale instances which are relied upon by the claimants before the reference court was in respect of the commercial transaction and the property which is acquired is of a private property. Hence, the rates which were pointed out by the claimant ought not have been made applicable in the present case. Hence, it is their submission that the reference court committed an error in enhancing the compensation without there being any sale instance from the same village which can be taken into consideration. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has strongly opposed the appeal and relied upon the judgment of this court decided on 18.12.2025 wherein this court has considered the rate of open plot of same village Pahur at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. meter and rate of built up area was confirmed at the rate of 2,200/- per sq. meter. Hence, considering this judgment of this court, the submission of the appellant that once this court has already taken into 5 66 FA 1016.14 consideration the market rate of the open plot and claimants has been awarded less than the amount determined by this Court, it is not a fit case of interference. 7. In the light of the submission of both the parties and the perusal of the judgment of the reference court, it is clear that the learned reference court has elaborately considered the entire evidence as well as the sale instance and record of right which were placed on record. After considering the sale instance and its relevance, the learned reference court by recording cogent reasons passed the judgment in the matter. 8. In the light of the judgment delivered by this court in First Appeal No.751/2012 dated 18.12.2025 and the reasons which are recorded by the learned reference court, I do not find any perversity or illegality committed by the reference court in the matter. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. 9. It is stated that the appellant has already deposited the entire amount with the Registry of this court in view of the interim direction of this court. 6 66 FA 1016.14 10. The respondents-claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon subject to satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial). 11. Civil Application (CAF) No.09/2026 stands disposed of accordingly. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande