1 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 931 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30370 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13325 OF 2016 IN FAST/30370/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS BABASAHEB PANDURANG KARALE AND ANR ... Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13326 OF 2016 IN FAST/30370/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS BABASAHEB PANDURANG KARALE AND ANR … Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State. AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30364 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13313 OF 2016 IN FAST/30364/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS RAGHUNATH NARAYAN CHAURE AND ANR … Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State. Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30373 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13323 OF 2016 IN FAST/30373/2016 2026:BHC-AUG:27095 2 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS SANJAY NAMDEO SHELAR … Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13314 OF 2016 IN FAST/30364/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS RAGHUNATH NARAYAN CHAURE AND ANR … Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State. Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13321 OF 2016 IN FAST/30373/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS SANJAY NAMDEO SHELAR … Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13325 OF 2016, 13321 OF 2016 AND 13313 OF 2016:- 1. By these applications, the Appellants are seeking condonation of delay of 480 days in filing first appeals. 3 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016 2. Considering the averments made in the applications, the applications are allowed. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NOS. 30370 OF 2016, 30364 OF 2016 AND 30373 OF 2016:- 3. Heard Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP for the Appellants/State. By consent of the learned AGP, the matters are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 4. By the present appeals, the Appellants/State are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.01.2015 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in L.A.R. Nos. 51/2012, 52/2012 and 30/2012, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable for the lands 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 lands as non-agricultural lands. He invited my attention to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and submitted that the lands situated at village Nepti were included in the Urban Development Plan and were shown in the Green Zone under the Development Plan. He contended that once the lands were shown in the Green Zone, they ought to have been treated as agricultural lands. Consequently, according to him, the learned 4 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016 Reference Court ought not to have applied the market rate applicable to non-agricultural lands. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned judgment and award deserve to be set aside. 6. None appears for the Respondents/Claimants. 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 Nepti area was included in the Urban Development Plan and that the acquired lands were situated in the Green Zone. Solely on that basis, the lands were treated as agricultural lands. However, the material placed before the learned Reference Court, including the sale instances relied upon by the Claimants, clearly established that the acquired lands had already been converted into non-agricultural lands. Accordingly, the learned Reference Court assessed the market value on the basis of comparable sale instances relating to non-agricultural lands. Merely because the lands were shown in the Green Zone under the Development Plan could not be a valid ground to ignore their non-agricultural character and deny the appropriate market value. 8. The learned Reference Court has rightly recorded that the acquired lands had already been converted into non-agricultural lands and, therefore, rightly determined the market value by relying upon 5 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016 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 perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. 9. Hence, the appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef