THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. JAYSING CHANGDEO KAMBLE AND ANOTHER
CA/5802/2015 · 2026-07-10
Shri Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre
body2015
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2015 DAILYLAW 2733 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2015 DAILYLAW 2733 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
33-CA-5800-2015.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 33 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5800 OF 2015 IN FAST/12302/2015 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Changdeo Vithoba Kamble Died His Lrs Kalawati Changdeo Kamble And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5801 OF 2015 IN FAST/12302/2015 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Changdeo Vithoba Kamble Died His Lrs Kalawati Changdeo Kamble And Others
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5802 OF 2015 IN FAST/12305/2015 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Jaysing Changdeo Kamble And Another
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5803 OF 2015 IN FAST/12305/2015 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Jaysing Changdeo Kamble And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 12302 OF 2015 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Changdeo Vithoba Kamble Died His Lrs Kalawati Changdeo Kamble And Others Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:29346
33-CA-5800-2015.doc WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 12305 OF 2015 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Jaysing Changdeo Kamble And Another
... Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for State. Mr. S. A. Wakure for Respondent Nos.1a to 1d and 1f. ... CORAM :
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE :
10 JULY 2026 P. C.:
1. There is delay in filing First Appeals. Considering the averments made in the Civil Applications, the same are allowed. The delay in filing the captioned First Appeals is condoned. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1994, the First Appeals are heard finally with the consent of learned counsel. 3. The lands of the claimants were acquired for construction of percolation tank at Bhavanwadi. The notification under Section 4 was published on 6th October 1994. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 8th August 1996. The possession of the land was taken on 28th October 1991 and the award was passed on 31st December 1999. The SLAO granted compensation @Rs.15,000/- per hector. The claimants claimed the same @Rs.40,000/- per acre and the Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Shubham
33-CA-5800-2015.doc
4. Learned AGP submits that the SLAO has granted adequate compensation which was erroneously enhanced by the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court ought not have relied upon sale instances below Exh.28 and 29 as the same were not from the village from where the land was acquired. It has come on record that there is considerable distance between the land in sale instance and the land acquired.
Thus, the learned Reference Court has wrongly enhanced the compensation. 5. Per contra, Mr. Wakure supports the impugned award passed by the Reference Court. He submits that the claimants had filed on record two sale instances below Exh.28 and 29 which were from the village Bavi which is adjacent to the village Bhavanwadi and this fact has been proved by village map filed below Exh.40. Thus, he supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the present Appeals. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The impugned order reveals that the learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instances below Exh.28 and 29 along with a village map at Exh.40. Both the sale instances are from village Bavi. The village map at Exh.40 shows that the village Bavi is at a distance of 1 km from village Bhavanwadi and both are adjacent to each other. Thus, these sale instances can safely be relied upon for determination of market value. Land in sale instance at Exh.28 dated 30th May 1994 was sold for consideration of Shubham
33-CA-5800-2015.doc Rs.45,000/- (Rs.90,000/- per acre)and that of sale instance below Exh.29 dated 25th July 1994 was sold at Rs.4,000/- (Rs.64,000/- per acre). The learned Reference Court has taken average of these market values and further deducted 25% towards smaller size of the lands in sale instances. Thus, the market value came to Rs.57,750/-, but as the claimants had restricted their claim to Rs.40,000/- per acre, the learned Reference Court rightly granted compensation @Rs.40,000/- per acre. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the impugned award. 7. Hence, the Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham