FA 3786/17 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3786 OF 2017 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3788 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11938 OF 2021 IN FA/3788/2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11940 OF 2021 IN FA/3787/2017 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3787 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11659 OF 2021 IN FA/3786/2017 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3797 OF 2017 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3798 OF 2017 BABARAO TATERAO MANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Arvind Deshmukh AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. A.D. Wange ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 07, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 2. In all the first appeals the original claimants/appellants herein are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.7.2015 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in LAR No. 13/2014 and other connected references arising out of the same award of Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). 3. The lands of the claimants/appellants situated at village Kalgaon, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani came to be acquired for rehabilitation of flood affected village Nilla Tq. Purna, District Parbhani. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Thereafter 2026:BHC-AUG:27617 FA 3786/17 2 notice under section 6 of the Act was issued. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1110/- per R. The claimants accepted the compensation under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 4. The learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeals. 5. Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that before the reference court has sale deeds prior to section 4 notification were not placed on record and whatever the sale deeds which were placed on record and relied upon by the claimant were of 2007 i.e. after section 4 notification. The claimants filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code and relied upon sale instances of 1999, 2003 and 2005 and therefore, he submits that considering the above, one more opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner in stead of asking the appellants to lead the evidence before this court. 6. Per contra, the learned AGP strongly opposed for the same by stating that here lands were acquired in the year 2006 and there was opportunity to the claimants to place comparable sale instances before the reference court. The reference court has enhanced compensation considering the sale instances of the year 2003 to 2005 and after considering the highest sale deed, the amount was granted. Therefore, he submits that there is no point in remanding these appeals to the reference court to decide it again. FA 3786/17 3 7. Having heard the learned counsel counsel for the appellants/claimants and after going through the copy of the judgment and award of the reference it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that SLAO has considered sale instances from the same village of the year 2002-2005 and highest market rate as per the sale deed was granted. But the fact remains that as the sale deeds prior to section 4 notification were not placed before the reference court, I find that the claimants/appellants filed and the sale deeds of the year 1997, 2003 and 2005 from the same village. As the Land Acquisition Act is the social legislation and the agriculturists whose land was acquired by the State, in my opinion proper compensation should be granted for their acquired lands. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present appeals by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the reference court. 8. In view of the above, the matters are remanded back to the learned reference court to decide the same afresh from the stage of evidence. The appellants are at liberty to file an application seeking permission to give fresh evidence in respect of comparable sale instances. The respondents are at liberty to counter the same. 9. It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to receive the interest and other statutory benefits from the date of judgment and award of the reference court till today. The reference court is directed to decide the matter within a period of six months from today on its own merits in accordance with law. Accordingly all the appeals are partly allowed. Civil applications are disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/