1 of 4 932-CA.4265.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 932 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4891 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4265 OF 2017 IN FAST/4891/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS LILABAI SAVLERAM KORADE ... Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Applicant/State. Mr. Prafulla J. Sagalgile h/f. Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Respondent. … AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4896 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4263 OF 2017 IN FAST/4896/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS BAJIRAO LAHANU KOTKAR AND ORS … Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Applicant/State. Mr. Prafulla J. Sagalgile h/f. Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 8. … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.4265 OF 2017 & 4263 OF 2017:- 1. By these applications, the Appellants are seeking condonation of delay of 567 days and 496 days, respectively, in filing the First Appeals. 2026:BHC-AUG:28377 2 of 4 932-CA.4265.2017 2. Considering the averments made in the applications and the grounds stated therein, the applications are allowed. The delay in filing the First Appeals is condoned. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NOS.4891 OF 2017 & 4896 OF 2017:- 3. Both the learned Advocates submit that as the acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 2009, the first appeals be heard finally. Therefore, appeals are Admitted and taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned Advocates. 4. By the present appeals, the Appellants/State are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in LAR Nos.22 of 2013 and 26 of 2013, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired for the Nagar Bypass Road project. 5. Learned AGP for the Appellants/State submits that the learned Reference Court erred in treating the acquired land as non- agricultural land while determining its market value. He invited my attention to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and submitted that the SLAO has rightly granted compensation. He further submits that the learned Reference Court without assigning reasons granted compensation @ of Rs.42,150/- per R, which is exorbitant. He also submits that the sale instances relied 3 of 4 932-CA.4265.2017 upon by the learned Reference Court were not appreciated in their true perspective of nature, proximity, location, quality, classification and potentiality of the land therein with that of land acquired. He also contended that the learned Reference Court placed more reliance on the evidence adduced by the Claimant, whereas ignored the evidence of State/acquiring body thereby arriving at incorrect conclusion. 6. Mr. Prafulla J. Sagalgile holding for Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, learned Advocate for the Respondents, supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as the award passed by the SLAO. However, the evidence on record, including the award passed in LAR Nos.278/2011 and 303/2011 relied upon by the Claimants, establishes that the lands in vicinity of acquired lands had already been converted into non-agricultural lands. The learned Reference Court, therefore, rightly relied upon the award passed in LAR Nos.278/2011 and 303/2011 relating to non-agricultural lands while determining the market value. The SLAO ignored their non- agricultural potential thereby denying compensation at the appropriate market rate. 8. The learned Reference Court has, therefore, rightly held that the lands in vicinity of acquired lands was having non-agricultural 4 of 4 932-CA.4265.2017 potential and the acquired land was situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar. The learned Reference Court after considering the award passed in LAR Nos.278/2011 and 303/2011, determined the market value accordingly. I do not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award warranting interference. 9. Hence, the present appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef