FA 1100/17 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 35 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2017 RAMRAO WAMANRAO DESHMUKH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.S. Halkude AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande ... 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 appellant/original claimant is challenging the judgment and award dated 9.8.2012 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir in LAR No. 1420/2010 (Old No. 305/2007). 4. The land of the claimant admeasuring 2 H. 41 R. from Block No. 41 situated at village Takli-Wagdari was acquired for the purpose of construction of Takli Village Tank situated at village Takli-Wagdari, Tq. Udgir. Villages Takali-Wagdari were connected each other and for the same project, lands were acquired. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 13.10.2005. The possession of the land was taken over on 16.2.20004. The final award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 29.11.2006. The SLAO has granted rate of Rs.854/- per R. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed above reference under section 18 of the Act. Before the reference court, the claimant has relied upon award passed by the SLAO, E statement, sale deed, 7/12 2026:BHC-AUG:32461 FA 1100/17 2 extract, tax receipts, electricity bills and the record slip issued by sugar factory, below Exhs. 11 to 24, 27, 34 to 37, respectively. As per sale instance, Exh. 13, dated 15.4.2002 the land admeasuring 47 R. was sold for Rs. 1,51,000/- i.e. Rs.3213/- per R. The reference court by treating some part of acquired land as dry land, deducted 30% and thereafter granted 30% escalation for three years and again reduced 30% from the market value on the ground that the sale instance was from the different village and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4400/- per R. irrigated land, Rs. 2200/- per R. for dry land. The reference court has treated 80 R. land out of entire acquired land as dry land and therefore, being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 5. Mr. S.S. Halkude, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned reference court though relied on sale instance Exh. 13, deduction in all 60% of the market value, though 30% price escalation was granted for three years and ultimately in all 30% deduction has been made from the market value of the sale instance, Exh. 13, which is in respect of 47 R. sold from adjacent village Wagdari. He therefore submits that the deduction of 60% ought not to have been made by the reference court and considering the fact that the land was acquired in the year 2002 and the notification was issued in the year 2005, the claimants are entitled to receive 30% escalation from the market value determined by the reference court. On this ground, therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP for State has vehemently submits that the sale instance at Exh. 13 is from different village and more particularly 47 R. land was sold and therefore, the learned reference court has rightly deducted 60%, even the learned reference court has granted 30% price escalation for three years and therefore, ultimately there was FA 1100/17 3 only 30% deductions. He further submits that the sale instance was in respect of small piece of land and from the different village. He further submits that considering the 7/12 extract of the acquired land the SLAO has considered the acquired land as dry land, but the reference court has taken a reasonable view and has rightly granted compensation. He therefore prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the record and proceedings and the judgment and award passed by the reference court. There is no doubt that land of the claimant was acquired for aforesaid project. The land of the claimant from village Takli was acquired and the project was implemented for Takli-Wagdari villages. The sale instance, Exh. 13, dated 15.4.2002 is from village Wagdari and the sale consideration was for 47 R. land and therefore, it cannot be said that the same is small piece of land and therefore, I find that on this ground the learned reference court ought not to have deducted 30% in view of the fact that the title clause and record shows that Takali-Wagdari villages are connected villages. Therefore, to that effect in my view the learned reference court has committed error while deducting 30% amount from market value. Even on persual of record, it is seen that no any contra evidence was led by the acquiring body to show that these are two different villages. Therefore, I further hold that the learned reference court has rightly relied upon the sale instance,Exh. 13 as a comparable sale instance on which claimant relied. The sale instance is dated 15.4.2002 and section 4 notification was published on 13.10.2005 and therefore, I find that the claimant is entitled to receive 10% escalation per year for the period of two years excluding the first year i.e. 2002. As per the sale instance, Exh. 13, market value of acquired land comes to FA 1100/17 4 Rs.3213/- per R. and by adding 20% price escalation i.e. Rs.642.5 market value of the acquired land comes to Rs.3855/- per R. for dry land and making double of it comes to Rs. 7710/- per R. for irrigated land. 8. As regards the treating 80 R. land as dry land is concerned, considering the 7/12 extract, it appears that the claimant was cultivating Kharip crops and the crop pattern also shows the same, therefore, to that extent, I am not inclined to interfere in the finding recorded by the reference court. Hence, I pass the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeal is partly allowed. (II) The appellant/claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 7710/- per R. for Bagayat land and Rs. 3855/- per R. for Jirayat land. (III) The appellants/claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation. (IV) The impugned judgment and order of the reference court is modified to that extent. (V) Rest of the award is maintained. (VI) Claimants to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount. (VI) Civil Applications, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/