1 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 953 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4513 OF 2017 IN FAST/6101/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS ANNA FAKIRA GULVE ... Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants-State. Mr. S. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Respondent. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4514 OF 2017 IN FAST/6101/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS ANNA FAKIRA GULVE … Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants-State. Mr. S. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Respondent. … AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6101 OF 2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS ANNA FAKIRA GULVE … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2017:- 1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 1428 days in filing first appeal. 2026:BHC-AUG:26545 2 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017 2. Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6101 OF 2017:- 3. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. By consent of the parties, 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 17.12.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar in L.A.R. No.40 of 2000. 5. Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP for the Appellant–State, submits that land admeasuring 6 R was acquired for the construction of a water tank. The Land Acquisition Officer (SLO) awarded total compensation of Rs.9,267/-. However, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation by granting an additional amount of Rs.3,550/- per R and further granted a 10% escalation. He submits that the Reference Court ought not to have granted the said escalation, as the sale instances below Exhibits-36 and 38 relied upon were from the same village and were proximate in point of time. According to him, the compensation awarded by the SLO was just and adequate. 6. He further submits that possession of the acquired land was taken on 05.05.1997 and that the sale instances below Exhibits-36 and 3 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017 38 relied upon by the learned Reference Court is dated 25.04.1997, which was executed barely two months prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, according to him, there was no justification for granting a 10% escalation on the basis of the said sale instance. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. B. Shirsath, learned Advocate for the Respondent–Claimant, supports the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. He submits that the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation. Though the sale instances pertain to irrigated lands, the SLO failed to take those comparable sale instances into consideration and awarded meagre compensation. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly allowed L.A.R. No.40 of 2000. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the sale instances below Exhibits-36 and 38 relied upon by the Reference Court is of a period barely two months prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, it is equally evident that all the comparable sale instances relied upon by the Claimant pertain to irrigated lands. Despite those sale instances being available before the SLO, the same were not properly considered while determining the market value, resulting in 4 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017 the award of meagre compensation. Considering that the acquired land is also irrigated land, I find that the learned Reference Court has committed no error in enhancing the compensation. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award warranting interference by this Court. 9. Hence, the present 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