920-FA-1858-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1858 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Shahaji Vithoba Shirsat With Consent Namdeo Babu Ganje Dead Thr Lrs Vanita And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1859 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Prakash Vithoba Bhuikar WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1860 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Babu Khanda Ganje WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1861 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Rangnath Eknath Sirsat WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Hanuman Dyanaba Mali Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:36496 920-FA-1858-2017.doc WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1864 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Nagesh Balwant Kulkarni WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1866 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Arjun Krishna Magar Dead Thr Lrs Jagannath And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1862 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Fulabai Chandrakant Aware WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1865 OF 2017 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Nagnath Rattu Magar WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 30832 OF 2016 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive Engineer And Ors VERSUS Mahmad Turb Shaikh And Ors ... Mr. A. M. Gaikwad for the Appellant. Vivekanand B. Deshmukh for the Respondents. ... Shubham 920-FA-1858-2017.doc CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026 P. C.: 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, the Appeals are being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The First Appeal No.1862 of 2017, 1865 of 2017 and First Appeal (St.) No.30832 of 2016 are not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 4. The present Appeals are filed by the acquiring body being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR following references, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation in favour of the claimants:- Sr. No. LAR Nos. Gat No. Area Compensation awarded by the LAO 1. 395/2011 802 20 R Rs.33,500/- 2. 393/2011 841 16 R Rs.43,000/- 3. 390/2011 819 50 R Rs.40,000/- 4. 99/2009 637 4 R Rs.51,500/- 5. 97/2009 808 48 R Rs.43,000/- 6. 966/2011 804 24 R Rs.43,000/- 7. 98/2009 788 65 R Rs.40,000/- 8. 391/2011 809 12 R Rs.40,000/- 9. 392/2011 760 761 6 R 10 R Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Shubham 920-FA-1858-2017.doc 10. 394/2011 847 18 R Rs.40,000/- 5. The land of the claimants was acquired for the purpose of Sangli Malumbra minor irrigation tank. The notification under Section 4 was published on 23rd December 1999, declaration under Section 6 was published on 11th July 2002, the possession of the acquired land was taken on 19th March 1996 i.e. prior to the date of notification under Section 4. The award was passed on 29th March 2003. The Reference Court awarded compensation @Rs.3333/- per R for dry land, Rs.5000/- per R for seasonally irrigated land and Rs.6666/- per R for irrigated land. The claimants had claimed higher compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant-acquiring body submits that the learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instance below Exh.14 which was situated at a distance of 8 kms from the acquired lands and thus the same was not comparable with the acquired lands, thought the Reference Court applied deduction of 40%. He further submits that the possession was taken prior to the date of notification but the learned Reference Court has granted interest from the date of taking possession which is contrary to the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Therefore, he prays to allow the First Appeals and quash the impugned awards. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Shubham 920-FA-1858-2017.doc Reference Court has rightly relied upon sale instances below Exh.17 dated 14th October 1999 and applied adequate deduction of 40% while determining market value of the acquired lands. The said deduction is adequate considering the location of the land in the sale instances and no further deduction is warranted. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the First Appeals. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record it reveals that the learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instance dated 14th October 1999 produced below Exh.17 whereby 12R land from village Tamalwadi was sold @Rs.8333/- per R. As the said sale instance was from a different village and land therein was situated at a distance of 8 kms from the acquired lands, the learned Reference Court has rightly applied deduction of 40%, thereby, arriving at the rate of Rs. 3333/- per R for dry land, Rs.5000/- per R for seasonally irrigated land and Rs.6666/- per R for irrigated land. Therefore, to that extent I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned awards. 9. Sofar as the interest under Section 28 and 34 is concerned, the learned Reference Court has granted the same from the date of taking possession which is contrary to the law laid down in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) and to that extent I am inclined to modify the impugned awards. Hence, I pass the following order:- Shubham 920-FA-1858-2017.doc O R D E R i. The First Appeals are partly allowed. ii. The claimants are entitled to interest under Section 28 and 34 from the date of awards as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) and to that extent impugned awards stand modified. iii. Rest of the awards passed by the learned Reference Court stand confirmed. iv. The claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the acquiring body along with interest accrued thereon. v. The bank guarantee or solvent security/surety as the case may be stands discharged after adjusting interest as aforesaid. vi. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham