1 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 949 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14824 OF 2016 IN FAST/32712/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS RAJARAM BHAGWANTA KOTKAR AND ORS ... Ms. A. S. Mantri, AGP for the Appellants-State. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14825 OF 2016 IN FAST/32712/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS RAJARAM BHAGWANTA KOTKAR AND ORS … Ms. A. S. Mantri, AGP for the Appellants-State. … AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NOS. 32712 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS RAJARAM BHAGWANTA KOTKAR AND ORS … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14824 OF 2016:- 1. By this application, the Appellants are seeking condonation of delay of 360 days in filing first appeal. 2026:BHC-AUG:26595 2 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016 2. Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NOS. 32712 OF 2016 :- 3. Heard Ms. A. S. Mantri, learned AGP for the Appellants/State. By consent of the learned AGP, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 4. By the present appeal, the Appellants/State are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.06.2015 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar in L.A.R. No.92 of 2011, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable for the land of the Claimants acquired for the Nagar Bypass Road. 5. Learned AGP for the Appellants/State submits that the learned Reference Court erroneously awarded compensation by treating the acquired land as non-agricultural land. She invited my attention to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and submitted that the acquired land situated at village Nimbalak, Taluka Nagar, was included in the Urban Development Plan and was shown in the Green Zone under the Development Plan. She contended that once the land was shown in the Green Zone, it ought to have been treated as agricultural land. Consequently, the learned Reference Court ought not to have applied the market rate applicable 3 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016 to non-agricultural land. On this ground, she submits that the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside. 6. None appears for the Respondents/Claimants, though served. 7. I have heard the learned AGP for the Appellants/State and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as the award passed by the SLAO. The SLAO observed that the Nimbalak area was included in the Urban Development Plan and that the acquired land was shown in the Green Zone. Solely on that basis, the acquired land was treated as agricultural land. However, the material available on record, including the sale instances relied upon by the Claimants, clearly established before the learned Reference Court that the acquired land had already been converted into non-agricultural land. Accordingly, the learned Reference Court determined the market value on the basis of comparable sale instances relating to non-agricultural lands. Merely because the land was shown in the Green Zone under the Development Plan could not be a valid ground to ignore its non- agricultural character and deny the appropriate market value. 8. The learned Reference Court has rightly held that the acquired land had already been converted into non-agricultural land and, therefore, rightly determined the market value by relying upon the sale instances prevailing as on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. I do not find any 4 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016 perversity or illegality in the judgment and award dated 20.06.2015 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar in L.A.R. No.92 of 2011. 9. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef