FA 690/17 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 33 FIRST APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS VERSUS PRAKASH ABASAHEB KHARAT AND ANR ... AGP for Appellants/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 27, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 2005, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 3. By this appeal, the appellants/acquiring body is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.4.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in LAR No. 577/2010, whereby the reference court has enhanced the compensation. 4. The land of the claimant admeasuring 30 R. from Gat No. 15 situated at village Takle Pokhari, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna was acquired by the State for construction of Takle Pokhari Percolation Tank No. 3 Taluka Mantha. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 21.11.2005. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared award on 29.1.2008. The SLAO has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 710/- per R. for dry land and the same was enhanced by the reference court by determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3000/- per R. for seasonally irrigated land. 5. Mr. B.A. Shinde, learned AGP for the State submits that SLAO has 2026:BHC-AUG:31941 FA 690/17 2 granted proper compensation, but the reference court has enhanced the same wrongly. He submits that the reference court has relied upon the order passed in LAR No. 901/2010, arising out of the same notification and from the same project and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per R. for seasonally irrigated land. 6. In spite of service, none appeared for original claimants. 7. Having heard the learned AGP, with his assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment and award. On perusal of the record, it appears that after going through the record, the SLAO has granted Rs.710/- per R. for acquired land. The claimants have relied upon the judgment and award in LAR No. 901/2010, arising out of the same notification and from the same village in which market value of dry land was fixed at Rs.2000/- per R. and considering that as the land involved in the present matter is seasonally irrigated land, the reference court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per R. Though the judgment and order in LAR No. 901/2010 is not binding precedent, that can be used for determination of market value in the present matter as it arises out of the same notification and in respect of the lands from the same village and therefore, there is no reason to take different view. Therefore, I hold that the reference court has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/