1 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 928 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1302 OF 2016 IN FAST/18633/2015 GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS VERSUS RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE ... Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicants. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1303 OF 2016 IN FAST/18633/2015 GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS VERSUS RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE … Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicants. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1301 OF 2016 IN FAST/18633/2015 GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS VERSUS RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE … Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicants. … AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.18633 OF 2015 GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS VERSUS RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE 2026:BHC-AUG:26105 2 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1301 OF 2016:- (DELAY) 1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 666 days in filing first appeal. 2. Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.18633 OF 2015:- 3. Heard Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, learned Advocate for the Appellants. 4. By the present appeal, the Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.05.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.312 of 2009. 5. Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), by award dated 05.06.2006, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.860/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Respondent-Claimant sought a reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, contending that the compensation awarded was inadequate. He 3 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016 submits that the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation solely by relying upon the sale instance at Exhibit-30, dated 27.07.1998. According to him, the said sale instance pertains to a small piece of land admeasuring only 8 R and except for the said transaction, the Claimant did not produce any other evidence to justify enhancement of compensation. He further submits that the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the said sale instance, as it relates to a very small extent of land. Placing reliance upon a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he contends that sale instances relating to small plots should ordinarily not be treated as comparable while determining the market value of a large acquired land. He further submits that the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court was not in close proximity to the acquired land. 6. Learned Advocate for the Appellants further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court has been enhanced to more than four times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is wholly unjustified. 7. Though served, none appears for the Respondent/Claimant. 8. I have heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants and carefully perused the award passed by the learned Reference Court. The Reference Court has recorded a finding that it has relied upon the 4 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016 sale instance at Exhibit-30. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 31.09.2004, possession of the acquired land was taken on 13.03.2003, and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.860/- per R, which was found to be meagre. 9. The Claimant proved the sale instance at Exhibit-30, dated 27.07.1998, which was executed much prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification. Significantly, the Appellants did not lead any rebuttal evidence to establish that the said sale instance was not comparable or that it was not situated in close proximity to the acquired land. The learned Reference Court, after considering the fact that the sale deed was executed prior to the issuance of the Section 4 notification and making appropriate adjustments, arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as on the relevant date, i.e. 30.09.2004, ought to be Rs.1,90,000/- per hectare. 10. In view of the above, I find that the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit-30, which is prior to the Section 4 notification. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment and order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.312 of 2009, warranting interference by this Court. 5 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016 11. The First Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef