Fa 4434/17 & Anr. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 29 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4434 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8978 OF 2026 BALBHIM HANMANT GORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. V.D. Gunale AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Anand Chaware ... 30 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4435 OF 2017 DIGAMBAR HANMANT GORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. V.D. Gunale AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Anand Chaware ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 17, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Civil Application No. 8978/2026 is filed for bringing the legal heirs of deceased appellant in FA No. 4434/2017 on record by condoning the delay of 505 days caused in filing the application. For the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Legal heirs of deceased appellant be brought on record. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Admit. 3. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1996, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2026:BHC-AUG:37371 Fa 4434/17 & Anr. 2 4. By these appeals, the appellants/original claimants assail the judgment and award dated 24.9.2007 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur in LAR Nos. 167/2002 and 170/2002. 5. The lands of the claimants admeasuring 2 H. 95 R. from LAR No. 167/2002 and 1 H. 70 R. in LAR No. 170/2002 were acquired for construction of Kopra Storage Tank at village Kopra. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 4.4.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on 11.11.1998 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per Acre. The claimants accepted the said amount under protest and being aggrieved by the same, filed application before the Collector for proper determination of the market value of acquired lands. The reference court after going through the evidence led by the parties, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre. Being aggrieved by the same, the present first appeals are filed by the original claimants for further enhancement of compensation. 6. Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned counsel for original claimants submits that before the reference court, the claimants relied upon E-statements Exhs. 14 and 15, 7/12 extracts Exh. 16 to 32, sale instance Exh. 34 from village Kopra by which 22 R. land from Gat No. 66/2 was sold for Rs.75,000/-. He submits that the distance between the acquired lands and the land referred in sale instance, Exh. 34 is only 300 ft. and the said sale deed is executed prior to section 4 notification and duly proved. He therefore submits that the claimants are entitled to receive the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre. The learned counsel submits that the reference court without considering the sale instance, Exh. 34, and without recording any finding as to why the said Fa 4434/17 & Anr. 3 sale instance is not acceptable, has granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per R. i.e. Rs.40,000/- per Acre for the acquired lands as the said sale instance is for the small piece of land. He therefore prays that the impugned judgment and award of the reference court needs to be modified. 7. Per contra, Mr. Anand Chawre, learned counsel for acquiring body supports the award passed by the reference court. He submits that the learned reference court has rightly discarded the sale instance and even the claimants have not made out case before the reference court for granting enhancement. He further submits that as regards interest and statutory benefits are concerned, the reference court has wrongly granted the same from the date of notification which is contrary to the law laid down by the full bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. Therefore, he submits that the appeals filed by the original claimants be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and judgment and award of the reference court. It appears that the reference court has referred the sale instance, Exh. 34 and recorded finding that the said sale instance is for small piece of land, but there are no finding recorded that whether the said sale instance is relied upon or discarded by the reference court and without considering the same, has determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre. After going through the sale instance, it appears that the said sale instance is from the same village in respect of the land which was 300 ft. away from the acquired land. The claimants have lead the evidence and proved the same. Though there was no map produced to show that the distance between the Fa 4434/17 & Anr. 4 acquired lands and the land referred in sale instance, Exh. 34 is 300 ft., but the fact remains that the contention raised in respect of the distance between the acquired lands and the land referred in the sale instance is only 300 ft., was not controverted by the acquiring body before the reference court, therefore, this court has no option than to accept the same as comparable sale instance by which 22 R. land from Gat No. 66/2 from the same village was sold for Rs.75,000/- and the said sale instance was prior to section 4 notification. Hence, I hold that on the basis of sale instance, Exh. 34, market value of the acquired land needs to be determined. In view of the sale instance, Exh. 34, the claimants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.1,36,363/- per Acre. 9. As regards interest and statutory benefits are concerned, the reference court has granted the same from the date of notification which is contrary to the law laid down by the full bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. Hence, I pass the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeals are partly allowed. (II) The appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.1,36,363/- per Acre for their acquired lands. (III) The appellants/claimants are not entitled to receive interest and other statutory benefits for the delayed period of 2098 days caused in filing the present appeals. (IV) The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Fa 4434/17 & Anr. 5 Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). (V) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified accordingly. (VI) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/