14-FA-1183-2015.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1183 OF 2015 The Executive Engineer Lift Irrigation Divisi. Osmanabad And Another VERSUS Vinayak Girjappa Rajgura …… Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State …... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The earlier counsel, Ms. D.G. Ansingkar, is no longer on the panel of the appellant-Acquiring Body. Since the appeal is pending since 2015 and no other counsel has been engaged by the appellant-Acquiring Body, this Court requested learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande to assist the Court in the matter. He has graciously accepted the same and has assisted the Court. 2. Heard learned AGP for the appellants. None appears for the respondent-claimant, though duly served. 3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.253 of 2009, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per Acre, along with the statutory benefits. 2026:BHC-AUG:40630 14-FA-1183-2015.odt 2 3. The land of the respondent-claimant, admeasuring 16 Gunthas from Gat No.18, situated at village Baramgaon, Taluka and District Osmanabad, was acquired for the purpose of Lower Terna Project, Wadala Left Canal, Baramgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 18.01.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer thereafter passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 08.03.1999 and determined the market value at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per Hectare. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 4. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimant relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits 19 and 20. The learned Reference Court, however, did not rely upon those sale instances and instead considered the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009. The said reference also concerned land acquired from the same village, for the same project and under the same notification. Relying upon the said determination, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per Acre and awarded the consequential statutory benefits. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the Acquiring Body. 14-FA-1183-2015.odt 3 5. Learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande, submits that the learned Reference Court was not justified in relying upon the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009. According to him, the sale instances considered in the said reference could not have been treated as comparable instances for determining the market value of the land involved in the present reference. He, therefore, submits that the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP and have gone through the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award. 7. The record shows that the acquired land is situated at village Baramgaon and was acquired for the Lower Terna Project, Wadala Left Canal, Baramgaon. The Section 4 notification was published on 18.01.1996 and the Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 08.03.1999. The learned Reference Court, while determining the market value, did not rely upon the sale instances at Exhibits 19 and 20, but considered the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009. 8. It is true that the determination made in another land acquisition reference cannot, by itself, be treated as a binding precedent for determination of market value in another reference. However, such determination can be taken into consideration as a relevant piece of 14-FA-1183-2015.odt 4 evidence or a guiding circumstance, particularly when the acquisition is from the same village, for the same project and under the same notification. In the present case, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the determination in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009 on these very considerations. 9. The rate determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.18,000/- per Hectare, whereas the learned Reference Court has determined the market value at Rs.40,000/- per Acre. The latter rate works out to approximately Rs.98,842/- per Hectare. The enhancement, therefore, is substantial; however, the question before this Court is whether the determination by the learned Reference Court is shown to be unsustainable on the material available on record. 11. The learned AGP has not been able to point out any material demonstrating that the determination relied upon by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009 was wholly irrelevant or that the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre determined in the present case is otherwise unsupported by the material on record. The mere fact that the learned Reference Court did not accept the sale instances at Exhibits 19 and 20 cannot, in the facts of the present case, furnish sufficient ground to interfere with its determination. 14-FA-1183-2015.odt 5 12. In the circumstances, I find no error in the approach adopted by the learned Reference Court warranting interference in the present appeal. The impugned Judgment and Award, therefore, calls for no interference. Hence, the appeal deserved to be dismissed. 13. The First Appeal is dismissed. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane