1 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9304 OF 2017 IN FAST/16628/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS VERSUS VIKAS RAMLING CHAVAN AND ANR ... Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Applicants-State. Ms. Rekha Mohale (Choudhary) h/f. Ms. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9305 OF 2017 IN FAST/16628/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS VERSUS VIKAS RAMLING CHAVAN AND ANR … Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Applicants-State. Ms. Rekha Mohale (Choudhary) h/f. Ms. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent No.2. … AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.16628 OF 2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS VERSUS VIKAS RAMLING CHAVAN AND ANR … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9304 OF 2017:- 1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation Tauseef 2026:BHC-AUG:26541 2 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017 of delay of 1164 days in filing first appeal. 2. Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.16628 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 Appellant–State is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in L.A.R. No.574 of 1991, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. 5. Learned AGP for the Appellant–State submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per R. However, the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.846/- per R. He submits that land bearing Gat No.118/2, admeasuring 2 Hectares and 44 R, situated at Begda, Osmanabad was acquired for the construction of the Surdi–Begda Percolation Tank and that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was just and adequate. He further submits that the sale instances below Exhibits-15 and 17 relied upon by the learned Reference Court pertain to a different village and that the quality and potential of the lands covered by those sale instances are not comparable with the acquired Tauseef 3 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017 land. Therefore, according to him, the learned Reference Court has awarded exorbitant compensation. 6. Per contra, Ms. S. S. Choudhary, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2–Claimant, supports the impugned judgment and award. She submits that the SLAO awarded grossly inadequate compensation. According to her, the sale instances Exhibits-15 and 17 relied upon by the learned Reference Court relate to lands of similar quality situated in an adjacent village. Since the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 02.06.1988 and the comparable sale instance of the adjacent village was of the year 1986, the learned Reference Court rightly relied upon the said sale instance while determining the market value. 7. Learned Advocate for the Respondents–Claimants further submits that possession of the acquired land was taken on 24.03.1987. However, despite being entitled to the rental compensation in accordance with law, the Claimants have not received the same. 8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. It is an admitted position that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 02.06.1988. The SLAO awarded compensation at the rate of only Rs.80/- per R. It is quite possible that, at the relevant time, no comparable sale instances Tauseef 4 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017 from the same village were available. In such circumstances, the SLAO was not precluded from considering comparable sale instances from an adjacent village. However, that exercise was not undertaken. The learned Reference Court has, therefore, rightly relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits-15 and 17 pertaining to the year 1986, which is prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 and relates to land of comparable nature. I, therefore, find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award with respect to compensation part. But, the learned Reference Court has granted interest under Section 34 from the date of notification under Section 4, which is contrary to the law laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457 . Hence, to that extent, I am inclined to modify the impugned award. Therefore, I proceed to pass following order:- ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The statutory interest payable under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be calculated from the date of award in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) and to that extent, clause (iv) of the operative part of the award passed by the learned Tauseef 5 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017 Reference Court stands modified. (iii) Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court stands unaltered. (iv) The Respondents–Claimants are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Collector, Dharashiv, seeking rental compensation payable to them. If such an application is filed, the Collector, Dharashiv shall consider and decide the same in accordance with the applicable Government policy within a period of ten weeks from the date of its receipt. (v) Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef