34-FA-1191-2014.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2014 Devrao Yeshwantrao Madavi And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others …… Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Appellants-Claimants Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2 …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M.D. Narwadkar for the appellants and learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. By this appeal, the appellants-original claimants challenge the Judgment and Award dated 02.12.2013 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference No.465 of 2010. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference and determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The land belonging to claimant No.1, admeasuring 2 Hectare 02 R from Gut No.23, and the land belonging to claimant No.2, admeasuring 2 Hectare 43 R, situated at village Nirala Tanda, Taluka Kinwat, District 2026:BHC-AUG:40629 34-FA-1191-2014.odt 2 Nanded, were acquired for the purpose of construction of Storage Tank at Nirala Tanda. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 02.08.2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 24.12.2008 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per Hectare. The claimants accepted the said amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 4. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the sale deed at Exhibit 21, dated 23.01.2007. Under the said sale deed, land admeasuring 1 Hectare from Gut No.13 was sold for Rs.2,50,000/-. The learned Reference Court noticed that the land covered by the said sale deed was not adjacent to the acquired land. From the village map at Exhibit 22, it found that Gut No.13 was situated near Daheli Tanda. The claimant had also admitted in cross-examination that a Nala was passing nearby the land covered by the said sale deed. The learned Reference Court further noticed that, except the 7/12 extract, the claimants had not produced any document to establish that the acquired land was irrigated. Considering the material on record, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Narwadkar, for the appellants submits that the sale deed at Exhibit 21 is dated 23.01.2007 and is prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification dated 02.08.2007. He submits that 1 Hectare of 34-FA-1191-2014.odt 3 land was sold under the said transaction for Rs.2,50,000/-. According to him, the said transaction is a relevant comparable instance and, therefore, the market value of the acquired land deserves to be enhanced by granting compensation at the rate reflected in Exhibit 21. 6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Dande, supports the impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that the land covered by the said sale deed is not adjacent to the acquired land, is situated near Daheli Tanda and has a Nala passing nearby. He further submits that there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the acquired land was irrigated. He, therefore, submits that no further enhancement is warranted. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. There is no dispute that the sale deed at Exhibit 21 is dated 23.01.2007 and is prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification dated 02.08.2007. Under the said transaction, 1 Hectare of land was sold for Rs.2,50,000/-. However, the said transaction cannot be treated as an exact comparable instance. The land covered by Exhibit 21 is not adjacent to the acquired land. The village map at Exhibit 22 shows that Gut No.13 is situated near Daheli Tanda and the claimant has admitted that a Nala passes nearby the said land. 34-FA-1191-2014.odt 4 9. There is also no sufficient evidence on record to establish that the acquired land was irrigated. The learned Reference Court has specifically noticed that, except the 7/12 extract, no material was produced by the claimants to establish irrigation of the acquired land. Thus, the rate reflected in Exhibit 21 cannot be applied in its entirety to the acquired land. 10. Considering the aforesaid distinguishing features, an appropriate deduction from the rate reflected in Exhibit 21 is warranted. The rate reflected in the said sale deed and the rate after deduction of 50% work out as follows: Particulars Calculation Amount Sale consideration under Exhibit 21 For 1 Hectare Rs.2,50,000/- 50% deduction Rs.2,50,000 × 50% Rs.1,25,000/- Adjusted market value Rs.2,50,000 − Rs.1,25,000 Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare 11. Thus, after making the appropriate adjustment, the market value works out to Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court had determined the market value at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are, therefore, entitled to a marginal enhancement of Rs.5,000/- per Hectare. 12. The determination of Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare also takes into account the limitations of the sale instance relied upon by the claimants and avoids applying to the acquired land the full rate fetched by land having 34-FA-1191-2014.odt 5 different locational and physical features. I, therefore, find that the market value of the acquired land deserves to be fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The First Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 02.12.2013 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference No.465 of 2010 stands modified. (iii) The market value of the acquired land is determined at rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare, instead of Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare determined by the learned Reference Court. (iv) The claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (v) The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. (vi) Save and except the aforesaid modification in the quantum of compensation, the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference 34-FA-1191-2014.odt 6 Court shall remain unaltered. (vii) The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. (viii) Modified Award be drawn accordingly. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane