FA No. 644/15 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 33 FIRST APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2015 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS VERSUS PUNDALIK DHONDIBA SHINDE ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.R. Korde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 07, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The learned AGP submits that the present appeal can be disposed of in view of the order dated 29.6.2026 passed by this Court in FA No. 645/2015 (The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Shivaji Sangram Biradar and Ors.) and other connected matters. The said order reads thus :- “1. Heard learned AGP Mr. Korde for the appellant-State and learned counsel Mr. Nandgavale holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar for the respondents- claimants. 2. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Award dated 05.10.2012 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.486 of 2010, 481 of 2010, 1423 of 2010, 508 of 2010 and 395 of 2010, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the references and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. 3. The acquisition was undertaken for construction of the Ring Road outside Udgir City. The acquired lands are situated at villages Udgir, Somnathpur and Madlapur, Taluka Udgir, District Latur. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 17.06.1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7,56,000/- per hectare for the lands situated at Udgir, Rs.2,77,800/- per hectare for the lands situated at Somnathpur and Rs.9,50,000/- per hectare for the lands situated at Madlapur. The claimants accepted the compensation under protest and sought references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 2026:BHC-AUG:27092 FA No. 644/15 2 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands. In LAR No.486 of 2010, compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.32/- per square foot for the lands situated at Udgir. In LAR Nos.481 of 2010, 508 of 2010 and 480 of 2010, compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.40/- per square foot for the lands situated at Madlapur. In Land Acquisition Reference Nos.395 of 2010 and 1423 of 2010, compensation for the lands situated at Somnathpur was enhanced at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per R. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present appeals. 5. Learned AGP Mr. Korde submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded different rates of compensation after taking into consideration the location, nature and potential of the acquired lands situated in different villages. According to him, the Reference Court failed to appreciate these distinguishing features and granted excessive compensation. He further submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants pertained to small developed plots and, therefore, could not have been treated as safe guides for determining the market value of large tracts of acquired agricultural land. It was also contended that the Reference Court failed to make appropriate deductions while relying upon such sale instances. On these grounds, he prays that the impugned Judgment and Award be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Nandgavale, holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar for the respondents-claimants, supported the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants had already been produced before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the same merely on the ground that the transactions related to comparatively smaller pieces of land, without assigning any other cogent reason. He submitted that the sale deeds were genuine transactions executed prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and constituted the best available evidence for determination of market value. According to him, the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record and proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. It is evident from the record that the claimants had placed on record registered sale deeds executed prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. These sale transactions were also available before the Land Acquisition FA No. 644/15 3 Officer. However, the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the said sale instances solely on the ground that they related to smaller pieces of land. Except for this reason, no material has been pointed out to demonstrate that the transactions were either not genuine or were otherwise unsuitable for determining the prevailing market value. 9. Merely because the comparable sale instances pertain to smaller extents of land, the same cannot be rejected outright. It is well settled that bona fide sale transactions executed within a reasonable period prior to the notification under Section 4 constitute the best evidence of market value. If the transactions are otherwise comparable in respect of time, location and potentiality, they furnish a reliable basis for determining the compensation payable. Necessary deductions, wherever warranted, are matters of appreciation of evidence depending upon the facts of each case. 10. The Reference Court has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence in detail and has assigned cogent reasons while determining the market value of the acquired lands situated at the three villages. The enhancement granted by the Reference Court is founded upon legally admissible evidence and proper appreciation of the comparable sale instances. Learned AGP has not been able to point out any perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence warranting interference by this Court. I fined that the Reference Court has corrected the omission committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in ignoring the relevant sale instances produced by the claimants. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned common Judgment and Award does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in these appeals. 13. The First Appeals stand dismissed. 14. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 2. In view of the above, the present first appeal stands dismissed. Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/