Dilwale 1 902-fa-3003-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3003 OF 2017 Babasaheb Bhanudas Lomte VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2016 Hambirrao Namdeo Sabale VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2017 Rajaram Jagannath Lomate VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2017 Bapu Jagannath Lomate VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 4304 OF 2016 Mahadeos Namdeo Sabale VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Abhijit S. More AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. M. Phule Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. S. S. Dande ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 11.08.2026 2026:BHC-AUG:36989 Dilwale 2 902-fa-3003-17.odt PER COURT : 1. Admit. 2. As these appeals are pending since 2016 and 2017 and despite service, none appeared on behalf of respondent-acquiring body. Mr. S. S. Dande, who is on panel of acquiring body is requested to appear in the present appeals. Mr. S. S. Dande graciously accepted the same and showed readiness to work out the matter for final disposal. 3. As the acquisition proceedings are of the year 1997, the appeals are being heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. In First Appeal No.3003 of 2017, the claimant is challenging the judgment and award dated 29.09.2010 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.82 of 2006. In First Appeal Nos.868 and 1156 of 2017, the claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.07.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Paranda in LAR Nos.870 and 880 of 2011. In First Appeal No.4304 of 2016, the claimant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Paranda in LAR No.656 of 2011. In First Appeal No.633 of 2016, the claimant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.04.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Paranda in LAR No.818 of 2011. All the appellants are challenging the said awards against refusal by the respective Reference Courts to grant enhancement to the extent claimed Dilwale 3 902-fa-3003-17.odt by them. 5. The lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of Sina- Kolegaon, Medium Project. The notifications under Section 4 were published on 06.02.1997, notifications under Section 6 were published on 16.07.1998, the possession of the lands was obtained on 17.08.1996, awards were passed on 29.03.2001. The claimants accepted the amounts under protest and filed respective references against refusal to grant enhancement to the extent claimed by them. The details of respective First Appeals are as follows: Sr No. FA No. LAR No. Compensation by SLAO Compensation by Reference Court 1 3003/2017 82/2006 Rs.42,775/- Per H Rs.72,000/- for irrigated land 2 4304/2016 656/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.40,000/- for non irrigated land 3 868/2017 870/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.52,500/- for seasonally irrigated land 4 1156/2017 880/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.52,500/- for seasonally irrigated land 5 633/2016 818/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.50,000/- for non irrigated land 6. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Abhijit More submits that the claimant in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 had relied upon sale instance below Exhibit 19 dated 08.11.1994, whereby 2 acre irrigated land situated at Domgaon was sold for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.60,000/- per acre for irrigated land). The learned Reference Court ought to have Dilwale 4 902-fa-3003-17.odt treated the said sale instance as comparable sale instance in all the First Appeals, thereby granting uniform rate of compensation in all references. He further submits that the land in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 was irrigated land as there existed a well and Kharif crops were being cultivated at the relevant time and thus learned Reference Court ought to have treated the said land as irrigated land. Therefore, he submits that the First Appeals be allowed and compensation be enhanced. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Dande, learned counsel for acquiring body and Mr. A. M. Phule, learned AGP for the respondent-State strongly opposed the prayer for enhancement and submitted that the compensation granted by SLAO was adequate and no further enhancement is required. The learned Reference Court has already determined the nature of lands in respective references and no interference is required in the impugned awards. They further submit that the land in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 is dry land and to that extent the learned Reference Court has already recorded appropriate findings based on the evidence on record. Therefore, they pray to dismiss the First Appeals. 8. Having considering rival submissions of the learned counsel and upon perusal of record and proceedings with the able assistance of the learned counsel, the short issue for consideration is whether the learned Reference Court ought to have treated sale instance below Exhibit 19 as genuine and comparable sale instance in all the reference proceedings. The learned Reference Court has treated sale instance below Exhibit 19 Dilwale 5 902-fa-3003-17.odt dated 08.11.1994 as a comparable sale instance in First Appeal No.633 of 2016, whereby the irrigated land adm. 2 acres was sold for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.60,000/- per acre for irrigated land). The learned Reference Court worked out market value of dry land in the said First Appeal to Rs.40,000/- per acre. As the said sale instance is two and half years prior to Section 4 notification, the learned Reference Court applied 10% escalation for two and half years, thereby arriving at the market value of Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry land. 9. In all these references involved in these First Appeals, this sale instance was filed on record but while determining rate of compensation the learned Reference Court has granted distinguishable rates, thus I am of the opinion that as all these references arise out of same project and same acquisition proceedings, the learned Reference Court ought to have granted uniform rate of compensation by treating sale instance below Exhibit 19 as comparable sale instance. Hence, I am inclined to grant compensation in tune with sale instance at Exhibit 19 in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 i.e. @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry land. Therefore, compensation for irrigated land would be Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and for seasonally irrigated land would be Rs.75,000/- per acre. 10. The contention that the land in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 is irrigated, is not supported by adequate evidence and in absence of source of water, the land therein cannot be treated as irrigated land. The learned Reference Court has recorded finding to that effect that the land in the Dilwale 6 902-fa-3003-17.odt said first appeal is dry land, is appropriate. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:- ORDER i. First Appeal Nos.3003, 868 and 1156 of 2017 and 4304 of 2016 are partly allowed. ii. First Appeal No.633 of 2016 is dismissed. iii. The claimant in First Appeal No.3003 of 2017 is entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for irrigated land, the claimants in First Appeal Nos.868 and 1156 of 2017 are entitled to compensation @ Rs.75,000/- per acre for seasonally irrigated land and the claimant in First Appeal No.4304 of 2016 is entitled to compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry land and to that extent respective impugned awards stand modified. iv. The claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits and interest as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. v. Rest of the impugned awards stand confirmed. vi. Modified awards be drawn accordingly. vii. Deficit Court fee be paid. viii. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE