1 914FA868.2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2018 Dagdu S/o. Baburao Musle, Age. 46 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaulwadi, Post Ranisawargaon, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. …Appellant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith, Parbhani. 3. Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Latur. ...Respondents ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kale Mahesh P. AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. V.S. Badakh Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sangle Shirish G. ... CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard respective counsels. 2. The claimant, who was the owner of land Gat No. 211 admeasuring 0H.42 R in Gaulwadi, had taken an exception to the award passed by the reference Court in LAR No. 11/2011, dated 17.11.2017. 2026:BHC-AUG:6457 2 914FA868.2018.odt The land was acquired by the respondent for the construction of the Yeldarwadi storage tank, situated at Gaulwadi. 3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 20.04.2005, and notice under Section 6 came to be published on 21.11.2005. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered a rate of compensation of Rs. 920/- per R, treating the acquired land as dry crop land. 4. Being dissatisfied, the reference was sought, which was decided by the reference Court. 5. In order to prove the case, claimant examined himself, so also relied upon exhibit 38 which was the final award dated 21.06.2006, exhibit 29 was the award statement “E”, exhibit 30 was the sale  deed of the adjoining village, exhibit 31 was the 7/12 extract of the acquired land and exhibit 32 was Urban Valuation report for the year 2014. Claimant has also relied upon exhibit 33 that was map of Gaulwadi and exhibit 12 was Civil Revision Application No. 21/2015. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the aforesaid documents were not taken into consideration and in fact, the land which 3 914FA868.2018.odt was acquired was not a dry crop land but was an irrigated land. He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the acquiring body contended that the reference Court has rightly taken into consideration various aspects and, thereafter, has passed an award. 8. I have gone through the record of the case, so also heard the respective counsels at length. Exhibit 30 was the sale deed which was relied upon by the claimant. The trial Court had taken into consideration exhibit 30 for determining the market value of the acquired land. The trial Court had further stated that since nothing was brought to disbelieve exhibit 30, by the acquiring body, amount of Rs. 700/- per R was fixed as an appropriate rate of compensation. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that so far as the contention of the appellant/the claimant that exhibit 33 i.e. the map should have been taken into consideration, suffice it to say that the said map does not show that land mentioned in the sale deed was adjacent to the acquired land. 10. As far as 7/12 extract i.e. exhibit 31 is concerned, perusal of it would reveal that it is of 2014, whereas the Section 4 notification was passed on 20.04.2005, and award by the Special Land Acquisition 4 914FA868.2018.odt Officer was passed on 21.06.2006. Thus exhibit 31 cannot be taken into consideration and rightly it was ignored while determining the compensation by the reference Court. 11.              Coming to exhibit 37 which is a 7/12 extract of the acquired land, it is of the year 2006 and therefore cannot be taken into consideration. 12.              As far as the compensation for trees is concerned, it is admitted that the exact valuation was not brought on record by producing the valuation report / examining the expert evidence. Even otherwise, the reference Court has awarded the compensation for the trees. 13.              Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the possession of the land was taken on 15.04.2001, whereas notification under Section 4 was issued on 20.04.2005, and therefore, the claimant was entitled to rental compensation. Learned counsel may be right in advancing the aforesaid arguments, but the fact remains that such a prayer will have to be made before the competent authority. 14.              The reference Court has granted additional Rs. 700/- enhanced compensation to the claimant. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality committed by the reference Court while granting 5 914FA868.2018.odt additional enhanced compensation of Rs. 700/- to the claimant. The evidence produced on record was rightly appreciated and, thereafter, the reference was decided. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the matter. Hence, the following order is passed : ORDER First Appeal is dismissed. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) SPC