56-FA-661-26+F.doc Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 27909 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 967 of 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 968 of 2017 The State of Maharashtra thr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others … Applicant-Appellant V/s. Nimba Kondaji Rupwate and Others … Respondents Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP, for Appellant- Applicant. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JULY 07, 2026 P.C.: 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the land of the Respondents. Original Claimants situated at village Ghoti (Budruk), Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. The acquisition was made for construction of the Ghoti. Sinnar Road. 1 SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2026.07.07 16:55:23 +0530 56-FA-661-26+F.doc 2. After that, on 10th June, 2002, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and fixed the compensation payable for the acquired land. The Respondents. Original Claimants were not satisfied with the compensation and therefore filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They claimed that they should get compensation at the rate of Rs.200 per square metre. On 18th December, 2013, the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, decided the reference and passed the Judgment and Award. The Reference Court granted enhanced compensation of Rs.2,48,270/-, along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in favour of the Respondents. Original Claimants. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the present Appeal has been filed. 3. From the Award, it appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of land bearing Gat No.18/15, admeasuring 40 Ares, at Rs.30,930/-. However, the Reference Court determined the market value of the said land under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act at Rs.1,27,095/-. Because of this, the compensation was enhanced by Rs.96,165/-. After adding the statutory amount under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2), along with the other admissible benefits, the total amount payable comes to Rs.2,48,708/-. 4. After going through the impugned Judgment passed by the Reference Court, it appears that the Reference Court has 2 56-FA-661-26+F.doc considered the sale instances of nearby lands which were found to be comparable in nature. It also appears that the Court has taken into account the advantages and disadvantages of those lands before comparing them with the acquired land. The material and documents produced by the claimant were also considered. Nothing is seen to show that the Reference Court ignored any relevant material while deciding the market value. It further appears that the Reference Court has kept in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Another, (1988) 3 SCC 751 : AIR 1988 SC 1652. Those principles require the Court to examine comparable sale instances carefully and then arrive at a fair market value after considering all relevant circumstances. Prima facie, it appears that the Reference Court has followed those parameters while assessing the compensation. 5. On careful reading of the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in paragraph nos. 17 to 21, it appears that each circumstance has been discussed before arriving at the final conclusion. The Reference Court has considered the evidence placed by the parties, the comparable sale transactions and the nature of the acquired land. The reasoning does not appear to be arbitrary or without basis. Though another view may also be possible in some cases, that itself cannot be a ground to interfere when the findings are supported by the material available on record. Therefore, in my opinion, the Reference Court appears to 3 56-FA-661-26+F.doc have rightly reached the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.1,66,165/-. The statutory benefits payable under the Land Acquisition Act were also rightly granted along with the enhanced compensation. 6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find that the impugned Judgment suffers from any legal or factual error which requires interference by this Court in the present Appeal. The findings recorded by the Reference Court appear to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the settled principles governing determination of market value. No sufficient ground has been shown by the Appellant for taking a different view. Therefore, the present Appeal does not deserve to be entertained. As a result, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The First Appeal is therefore dismissed. 8. The Civil Application No. 967 of 2017 and Civil Application No. 968 of 2017 also stand disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 4