1 903-fa-2880-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2880 OF 2018 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad Thr Gmidc, Aurangabad VERSUS Raosaheb Govind Patil And Anr ... Mr. V. P. Kadam, Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. R. V. Naiknaware, Advocate for Respondent no.1 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2884 OF 2018 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2885 OF 2018 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2883 OF 2018 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2881 OF 2018 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2882 OF 2018 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2886 OF 2018 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2887 OF 2018 ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 01.10.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad passed in following Land Acquisition References, the Acquiring Body is before this Court vide the present First Appeals. 2026:BHC-AUG:42149 2 903-fa-2880-2018 Sr. No. First Appeal No. L.A.R. No. Judgment date Court 1 2880 of 2018 445 of 2010 01.10.2013 Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad 2 2881 of 2018 453 of 2010 3 2882 of 2018 457 of 2010 4 2883 of 2018 455 of 2010 5 2884 of 2018 459 of 2010 6 2885 of 2018 454 of 2010 7 2886 of 2018 458 of 2010 8 2887 of 2018 446 of 2010 2. Considering the short issue of controversy before me, I have heard the First Appeals for final disposal at admission stage. In this group of First Appeals, in some matters the Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation holding valuation of the land @ Rs.260/- per R for dry land and Rs.310/- per R for irrigated land. 3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the claimants have approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claimants relied upon sale instance which was executed on 04.05.1995 and was identified as Exhibit-19. The Reference Court placed reliance on the said sale instance and enhanced the compensation to Rs.1925/- per R for dry land and Rs.3850/- per R for irrigated land. 3 903-fa-2880-2018 4. In the appeal, Mr. V. P. Kadam, learned Advocate appearing for the Acquiring Body would strenuously object the logic applied by learned Judge of Reference Court while escalating the compensation. He submits that apparently the said sale instance was from the neighboring village. He would submit that no sale instance from the same village from which the land was acquired was produced by the claimants. He would submit that in view of this, the Reference Court was not at all justified in placing reliance on Exhibit-19. 5. On the contrary, Mr. R. V. Naiknaware, learned Advocate representing the claimants would submit that the Reference Court has not at all committed any error while escalating the award. He submits that in fact the Reference Court has failed to grant even higher compensation for which the claimants do deserve. Without prejudice to his right to seek enhancement, he would submit that the ground on which the appeals are filed is not well founded. He would submit that the Reference Court has rightly relied on the judgment and orders passed by this Court in cases reported at 2003 (3) All MR 342 and 2009 (4) Mh.LJ. 707. Thus, Mr. Naiknavare, would pray to dismiss the appeals. 4 903-fa-2880-2018 6. I have heard both the learned Advocates extensively. With their able assistance, I have also perused the record. True that the sale instance at Exhibit-19 was from adjacent village. The Reference Court has justified its reliance on Exhibit-19 by referring the judgments and orders passed by this Court, wherein considering the peculiar facts of the cases, the sale instance from the neighboring village was adopted for escalating the award. 7. Upon query to Mr. V. P. Kadam, learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body, he fairly submits that the Acquiring Body has not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court to show that the claimants did not deserve any escalation or the escalation could not be granted in terms of Exhibit-19. In view of this, I find that there is no infirmity in the findings rendered by the Reference Court while granting escalation in the award. No case is made out to disturb the findings rendered by the Reference Court. In view of this, I pass following order: ORDER a. First Appeals stand dismissed. b. Any amount if deposited by the Acquiring Body is permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants. 5 903-fa-2880-2018 c. Any security if already given, stands discharged. d. Needless to mention, the withdrawal shall be together with accrued interest. e. Record and Proceedings be sent back. f. Suffice to note, the interest part would be governed by the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported at 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. In view of this, if any excess amount is found deposited by the Acquiring Body, the same be refunded. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026