34-FA-1526-2017.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2017 Kashinath Deoram Chaudhari (Died) Through L.Rs. Sakhubai Kashibai Chaudhari (Dead) Through L.Rs. Bhagwat And Ors VERSUS The Special Land Acquisition Officer(1), Upper Tapi Prakalp Hatnur-1, Jalgaon And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1527 OF 2017 Deoram Bhavadu Chaudhari (Died) Through L.Rs. Digambar Rajaram Patil and Another VERSUS The Special Land Acquisition Officer(1), Upper Tapi Prakalp Hatnur-1, Jalgaon And Another …… Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Appellants Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent No.1-State Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. These Appeals take exception to the common Judgment and Award dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhusawal, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.292 of 2014 (Old L.A.R. No.881/2006) and 293 of 2014 (Old L.A.R. No.293/2006), whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and enhanced the compensation payable to the respective claimants along with the statutory benefits. 2026:BHC-AUG:41869 34-FA-1526-2017.odt 2 3. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village Singat, Taluka Raver, Distrct. Jalgaon, came to be acquired for Rehabilitation of project affected persons of village Singat. The particulars of the acquired lands are as under: Sr. No. LAR No. Survey/Gat No. Area Acquired 1. 292 of 2014 59 (P) 97 R 2. 293 of 2014 59 (P) 97 R 3. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 26.03.1983. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLAO”) passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 08.07.2003 and determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rates Rs.45,112/- per Hectare. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the SLAO, accepted the compensation under protest and sought references under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the references came to be made to the learned Reference Court. 5. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon five sale instances. The learned Reference Court, however, found that the sale instance at Exhibit 15 dated 11.08.1982 was the relevant comparable instance. It enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.1,18,050/- per hectare and granted the consequential statutory benefits. The claimants have therefore preferred the present Appeals seeking further enhancement. 34-FA-1526-2017.odt 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation determined by the learned Reference Court is still inadequate and the appellants are entitled to further enhancement. He submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 15 dated 11.08.1982 ought not to have been treated as the sole basis for determining the market value to the extent done by the learned Reference Court. He, therefore, submits that the market value deserves to be enhanced. 7. Per contra, the learned AGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-submit that the market value determined by the SLAO was based upon the material available before him. They submit that the Reference Court has already granted substantial enhancement by relying upon Exhibit 15 and by allowing escalation. According to them, there is no further material to justify any additional enhancement. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the Appeals. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the record and proceedings. 9. The principal question is whether the claimants are entitled to any further enhancement over and above the market value determined by the learned Reference Court. For determining the market value on the basis of a comparable sale instance, the sale transaction must have reasonable proximity to the acquired land, both in point of time and in situation. Among the five sale instances relied upon by the claimants, the learned 34-FA-1526-2017.odt 4 Reference Court found Exhibit 15 to be the most relevant instance. 10. Exhibit 15 is the sale deed dated 11.08.1982 and relates to land situated in village Singat itself. The acquired lands are also situated in village Singat, Taluka Raver. Thus, unlike the other sale instances relied upon by the claimants, the sale instance at Exhibit 15 has the necessary proximity in situation. The learned Reference Court has also found the land covered by the said sale instance to possess the same potentiality as the acquired lands. I see no reason to take a different view. 11. The sale instance at Exhibit 15 shows that out of 1.23 H.R. land, an area of 41 R was sold for a consideration of Rs.44,000/-. The calculation made on the basis of the said transaction is as follows: Particulars Calculation Amount Area sold 41 R = 0.41 Hectare — Sale consideration — Rs. 44,000/- Rate per hectare Rs.44,000 ÷ 0.41 Rs.1,07,317/- 10% increase Rs.1,07,317 × 10% Rs.10,732/- Rate after increase Rs.1,07,317 + Rs.10,732 Rs.1,18,049/- Rounded rate — Rs.1,18,050/- per Hectare 12. The learned Reference Court, therefore, assessed the market value at Rs.1,18,049/- per hectare and rounded it off to Rs.1,18,050/- per hectare. The mathematical calculation is correct. 13. It is also relevant that the learned Reference Court considered the fact that the SLAO had before him several sale instances while passing the Award. However, Exhibit 15, which related to land situated in village Singat 34-FA-1526-2017.odt 5 itself, was not given due consideration while determining the market value. The Reference Court has corrected this aspect by relying upon the said sale instance and granting the appropriate increase. 14. The other sale instances relied upon by the claimants are from different villages and, therefore, do not have the same proximity in situation as Exhibit 15. Once a genuine sale instance from the same village, having comparable potentiality, is available, the learned Reference Court was justified in treating it as the principal basis for determining the market value. 15. Thus, the learned Reference Court has considered the relevant sale instance, the location and potentiality of the land, and has also granted the increase on the sale price before determining the market value at Rs.1,18,050/- per hectare. The appellants have not brought on record any material warranting a further enhancement. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the market value determined by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to be inadequate. The impugned Judgment and Award, therefore, does not call for any interference. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 17. Both the First Appeals are dismissed. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane