16-FA-2307-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 16 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2307 OF 2017 Ramesh Keshav Bavaskar VERSUS The Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.t.p.h.-2, Jalgaon And Anr ... Mr. Ajeet Kale for the Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State. Mr. Vivek Tarde for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2026 P. C.: 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The Appellants/original claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22nd January 2010, passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in LAR No.900 of 2005, whereby learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation, but the present Appeal is filed seeking further enhancement. 4. The land of the claimants was acquired for public purpose, the notification under Section 4 was issued on 9th March 2002 and award was passed on 28th October 2002. The SLAO granted compensation @Rs.62,500/- to Rs.93,500/- per hector. The claimants had claimed Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:30550 16-FA-2307-2017.doc compensation @Rs.6,00,000/- per hector for irrigated land whereas the Reference Court granted compensation @Rs.1,95,000/- per hector for dry land and Rs.3,90,000/- per hector for irrigated land and Rs.97,500/- per hector for Potkharab land. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-claimant submits that the claimants had proved before the learned Reference Court that their land was irrigated as it contained a well. The claimants relied upon sale instances dated 25 th February 1999 and 22nd June 2000 wherein lands sold were dry lands from the same village Chinchkhede (Bk.) but considering existence of well, the claimants claimed that their land was irrigated land thereby claiming compensation @Rs.6,00,000/- per hector for irrigated land. The learned Reference Court relied upon sale instance dated 25th February 1999 which was closest to the date of publication of Section 4 notice in the village. Despite existence of well, the learned Reference Court erroneously held that the land of claimants was dry land. Relying upon Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr. (1988 AIR SC 1652) and State of Maharashtra Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil (2006 LSC 375 Bom.), he prays to allow the present Appeal and enhance the compensation by holding the acquired land as irrigated land. 6. Per contra, learned AGP for the State and learned counsel for the acquiring body oppose the enhancement on the ground that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were of dry lands. Therefore, learned Shubham 16-FA-2307-2017.doc Reference Court by relying upon the same considered the acquired land as dry land as the land in the sale instances and the acquired land were from the same village. The learned Reference Court has recorded the finding that the claimants have failed to produce any document evidencing that their land had water source. The claimants have not even filed 7/12 extract to show nature of land. Thus, the learned Reference Court has rightly held that their land was dry land and thereby awarding compensation at the market value of at par with the sale instance dated 25th February 1999 i.e. Rs.1,95,000/- per hector for dry land. Thus he prays to dismiss the present Appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the acquired land contained a well. The learned Reference Court has recorded finding that the claimants were cultivating crops such as cotton, Tur and hybrid Jowar which are dry crops. The learned Reference Court relying upon sale instance from the same village dated 25th February 1999 held the market value to be Rs.1,95,000/- per hector for dry land which is appropriate. But this Court in First Appeals arising out of same project has granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per hector for dry land and Rs.4,00,000/- per hector for irrigated land. Adopting the same ruling in the present matter also, I am inclined to enhance compensation @Rs.2,00,000/- per hector for dry land. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- Shubham 16-FA-2307-2017.doc ORDER i. The present Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The Appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation @Rs.2,00,000/- for dry land and to that extent clause (2) of the operative order of the impugned award stands modified. iii. Rest of the award passed by the learned Reference Court stands confirmed. iv. Modified award be drawn up accordingly. 8. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham