27-FA-5050-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 27 FIRST APPEAL NO. 5050 OF 2017 Maroti Dhondiba Mane And Anr VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ... Mr. Gajanan Sontakke for the Appellants. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State. Mr. Anup Nikam for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2026 P. C.: 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997 and the matter was placed for final hearing, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. By this Appeal, the Appellants-original claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st December 2013, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani in LAR No.836 of 1997 whereby the Reference Court dismissed the reference filed by the claimants. 4. The land of the Appellants/claimants was acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation tank of Landakwadi. The notification under Section 4 was published on 3rd January 1986. The award was published on 25th June 1987 and notice under Section 12(2) was served on 25th June Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:28587 27-FA-5050-2017.doc 1987. The possession was taken in the year 1986. The SLAO granted compensation @Rs.3600/- per acre whereas the claimants claimed the same @Rs.20,000/- per acre. The Reference Court dismissed the Reference, aggrieved by which the present First Appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellants/claimants submits that it is the case of the claimants that the SLAO has granted inadequate compensation against which they filed reference under Section 18, but the Reference Court recorded finding that the SLAO granted adequate compensation and wrongly dismissed the reference without assigning reasons thereto. The claimants had produced on record sale instances which were not considered by the Reference Court. He further submits that the acquired land contained black cotton soil and borne good yearly income. He submits that though the adjoining land was sold at a lower market value, the same cannot be a basis to determine compensation with respect to the present acquired land as the acquired land was of a higher fertility and quality than the land instance relied upon by the SLAO. There were a bunch of sale instances ranging from lowest value of Rs.1980 to Rs.37,037/- but the SLAO considered average of these sale instances rather than relying upon sale instance bearing highest market value. The Reference Court did not consider sale instances below Exhs.64 and 67 in their proper perspective. He therefore submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have considered these aspects and granted enhanced compensation but refused to do so. Hence, he prayed to allow the Shubham 27-FA-5050-2017.doc present Appeal thereby enhancing the compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and learned AGP vehemently submit that the Reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference. They submit that the sale instances placed on record were either from village Sawargaon or Tehsil Gangakhed. None of the sale deed was from the village Landakwadi. The sale instances at Exhs.64 and 67 produced by the claimants were already considered by the SLAO while granting compensation. They further submit that the claimants failed to prove that the rate granted by the SLAO was inadequate by contending that the Reference Court has recorded a finding that the claimant has admitted in cross-examination that acquired land is situated at a distance of 15 kms from Gangakhed, 10 kms from Sawargaon and 2 kms from the road. Therefore, the acquired land was of lower market value. Therefore, they pray to dismiss the present First Appeal. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the impugned award. The learned Reference Court has recorded a finding that the claimant in his cross-examination has deposed that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 15 kms from Gangakhed, 10 kms from Sawargaon and 2 kms from the road. The sale instance dated 17th February 1983 filed at Exh.64 and another sale instance of Survey No.429 were from village Ranisawargaon. The sale deeds below Exh.64 and 67 were already considered by the SLAO while determining compensation. The Shubham 27-FA-5050-2017.doc Appellants/claimants failed to make out a case for enhancement of compensation by tendering cogent evidence and therefore, learned Reference Court rightly dismissed the reference by recording a finding that SLAO has granted adequate compensation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that interference in the impugned award is not warranted and the First Appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 8. The First Appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham