1 of 5 903-FA.1642.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2016 MAROTI PUNDLIK KANODE AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1649 OF 2016 NAGORAO GUNAJI JATALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026 P.C.:- 1. First Appeal No.1642 of 2016 is Admitted. 2. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2010, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 3. By the present appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 17.11.2015 and 25.11.2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, 2026:BHC-AUG:38666 2 of 5 903-FA.1642.2016 Nanded in LAR Nos.92/2012 and 116/2012. 4. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:- (i) The land of the Claimants was acquired for Bye-Pass Road, Rahimpur, Ardhapur, Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded. (ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), was published on 01.10.2010. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 21.04.2011. The possession was taken on 09.04.2011. The Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 08.05.2012. (iii) The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) passed the awarded on 17.04.2012 and awarded compensation @ of Rs.13,80,000/- per Hectare and Rs.5,52,000/- per Acre in First Appeal No.1642 of 2016, and @ of Rs.10,87,500/- per Hectare and Rs.4,35,000/- per Acre. The learned Reference Court awarded compensation @ of Rs.13,05,000/- per Hectare. 5. Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, learned Advocate for the Appellants/Claimants submits that the Claimants relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-14 in First Appeal No.1642 of 2016 and Exhibit- 13 in First Appeal No.1649 of 2016, whereby 20 R land was sold for Rs.6,87,000/- (Rs.34,35,000/- per Hectare) on 11.02.2009. The learned Reference Court refused to rely on the said sale instance without assigning reasons thereto. The learned Reference Court merely 3 of 5 903-FA.1642.2016 applied 20% escalation to the market value determined by the LAO and arrived at the rate of Rs.16,56,000/- per Hectare which is highly inadequate. Therefore, she prays to enhance the compensation by relying upon the sale instances at Exhibits-13 and 14. 6. Per contra, Mr. D. R. Korde, learned AGP for the Respondent- State in both the matters, submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly discarded the sale instance, as the land covered by the said sale instance was abutting the already existing Nanded-Hingoli Road, which definitely fetched higher market value. Therefore, the said sale instance cannot be relied upon, and hence, he submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly determined the compensation. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record and proceedings. In these appeals, the land admeasuring 50 R and 48 R, respectively, was acquired. The learned Reference Court erroneously refused to rely on the sale instance below Exhibits-13 and 14, which was from same village Ardhapur. The learned Reference Court without considering the sale instances available on record, merely on the ground that the market value in the sale instances was very high, refused to enhance the compensation and it applied escalation of 20% on the market value already determined the LAO, which in my opinion is inappropriate. 4 of 5 903-FA.1642.2016 8. After going through the record and proceedings, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the land was acquired for the Bye-Pass Road. The sale instance on which the Claimants have relied is in respect of irrigated land and the land of the Claimants was also agricultural land, therefore the same can be considered as a comparable sale instance. As per the sale instance, the land was abutting the Nanded-Hingoli Road, which is a State Highway, whereas, in the present case, the land was acquired for the Bye-Pass Road. Therefore, as the land covered by the sale instance fetched higher market value. Hence, In my opinion, it is appropriate to apply a 50% deduction to the market value in the sale instance i.e. Rs.34,35,000/- per Hectare for determining the market value, whereby the amount would come to Rs.17,17,500/- per Hectare. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER (i) The first appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The Claimants are entitled to receive compensation @ of Rs.17,17,500/- per Hectare (Rs.17,175/- per R) for their acquired lands and to that extent impugned awards stand modified. (iii) The Claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits including interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the 5 of 5 903-FA.1642.2016 date of award as per Full Bench Judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. (iv) Rest of the impugned awards passed by the learned Reference Court stand confirmed. (v) Modified awards be drawn accordingly. (vi) Deficit Court fees be paid. (vii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef