5-FA-4761-2017.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4761 OF 2017 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Ibrahim Nazir Kotwal AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 4762 OF 2017 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Sarabi Husainsab Mulla (Died) Through L.Rs. Ajij (Died) Through L.Rs. Yusuf And Another …… Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for Appellant-State …... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned AGP for the appellants. None appears for the respondents-claimants. 2. These appeals challenge the common Judgment and Award dated 24.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 653 of 2005 and 594 of 2005. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per sq. metre, along with the statutory benefits. 2026:BHC-AUG:40632 5-FA-4761-2017.odt 2 3. The lands of the respondents-claimants, admeasuring 1 Hectare 60 R and 2 Hectare 02 R, from Survey Nos.145/1/1 and 148/3, situated at village Sastur, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, were acquired for the rehabilitation of earthquake-affected persons from village Sastur. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 12.01.1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.10.1996 and determined the market value at Rs.24,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, the claimants accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 4. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits 36, 37 and 38. The learned Reference Court did not rely upon the said sale instances and, instead, considered the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.601 of 2005. The said reference also related to land situated at village Sastur, acquired for the same project under the same notification. Relying upon the said determination, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per sq. metre. 5. Learned AGP submits that the learned Reference Court was not justified in relying upon the determination made in Land Acquisition Reference No.601 of 2005, as the sale instances considered therein could 5-FA-4761-2017.odt 3 not have been treated as comparable instances for determining the market value of the lands involved in the present references. He, therefore, submits that the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP and perused the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award. 7. There is no dispute that the lands involved in the present appeals are situated at village Sastur and were acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. The learned Reference Court, while determining the market value, relied upon the determination made in Land Acquisition Reference No.601 of 2005, which related to land situated in the same village and forming part of the same acquisition. 8. Though a determination made in another land acquisition reference is not, by itself, binding for determining the market value in another reference, it can certainly be considered as a relevant piece of evidence, particularly where the acquisition is from the same village, for the same project and under the same notification. In the present case, the learned Reference Court has relied upon such determination for the aforesaid reasons. 9. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value at Rs.24,000/- per Hectare, whereas the learned Reference Court determined it at Rs.30/- per sq. metre. However, the learned AGP has not 5-FA-4761-2017.odt 4 been able to point out any material to show that the determination in Land Acquisition Reference No.601 of 2005 was wholly irrelevant or that the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. metre determined by the learned Reference Court is otherwise unsupported by the material on record. The mere fact that the learned Reference Court did not accept the sale instances at Exhibits 36, 37 and 38 is not, in the facts of the present case, sufficient to warrant interference with its determination. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the approach adopted by the learned Reference Court warranting interference by this Court. The impugned Judgment and Award, therefore, calls for no interference. Hence, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 11. The First Appeals are dismissed. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane