( 1 ) 979 ca 8840.22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 979 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8840 OF 2022 IN FA/3677/2008 RAMRAO ANANDRAO PATIL AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS AND 980 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3020 OF 2026 in FA/4050/2008 LACHAGAUD VITHAGAUD THR LRS PADMINIBAI AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DIST COLLECTOR NANDED ….. Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.V. Kurundkar & Mr. A.S. Deshmukh AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. R.B Dhaware Advocate for Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anand Chawre ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 18.06.2026 Per Court :- 1. Heard the learned advocates for the applicants and the respondents. It is pointed out by the learned advocate for the applicants that by an order dated 17.02.2026, this Court allowed the application partly with direction to the learned Reference Court to record the evidence of the claimants with respondent to disprove the same. This Court lastly observed that the application is allowed and disposed of and also directed to keep said 2026:BHC-AUG:27259 ( 2 ) 979 ca 8840.22 application with the appeal till the decision of this appeal for final hearing. 2. The learned advocate for the respondent no.3 in First Appeal No.3677 of 2008 was heard at that time. Meanwhile, another First Appeal No.166/2010 was decided on merit by this Court and this Court has determined the compensation @ Rs. 2723/- per R. During the arguments the learned advocates Mr. Kurundkar and Mr. Kakde for the appellants pointed out the evidence recorded by the trial Court in which evidence of witnesses was recorded in respect of sale exemplar dated 07.05.1997 which was executed for the 10 R land for consideration of Rs.37,500/-. The purchaser was adjacent land owner. They submitted that the sale exemplar relied upon by this Court is not prohibited as per the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. 3. During the argument, the learned advocates for the respondents Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Anand Chaware strongly opposed to rely upon the said sale exemplar stating that as per the notification of the State Government dated 08.08.2023, if the area of land exceeds 20 R for the Nanded district then such sale-deed is illegal and not sustainable which cannot be relied upon by this Court while deciding this appeal which was relied upon by this Court in First Appeal No.166 of 2010 for which the appellants are claiming parity. They submitted that said sale-deed cannot be relied upon at this stage. Upon ( 3 ) 979 ca 8840.22 considering the evidence as per Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 the adjacent owner has right to purchase the said property and said provision authorizes the contiguous owner to purchase the land even though it is fragment. Considering this aspect, the arguments advanced on the part of acquiring body is not acceptable in this regard. Now it is necessary to establish that purchaser was the contagious owner of the purchased property. As per the 7/12 extract, survey no.37/A of village Bhendegaon (Kh.), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded total area of 1 H 62 R. The purchaser is the owner of 40 R land. He purchased 10 R land out of that same survey number. For the purposes of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 the purchaser is certainly the contagious owner and therefore the objection raised by the learned advocate for the respondents is not acceptable in this regard. 4. As far as contagious owner is concerned, the learned advocate Mr. Kulkarni for the respondents submitted that merely because the purchaser has purchased the land in one and the same block number he cannot be contagious owner. On this point, the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that 10 R land is purchased by the purchaser from one and same land and he has deposed in chief examination to corroborate the said fact and ( 4 ) 979 ca 8840.22 said evidence is not disputed during his cross-examination. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent/acquiring body pointed out the boundaries of 10 R land which shows the land owners as towards the eastern side-Sanjay Digambar, towards western side- Tulsiram Sambhaji, towards southern side- Shivaji Ramorao and Balaji Ramrao and towards northern side- Ramakant Maroti. He submits that the purchaser’s name appears along with one of the boundaries; therefore, he is not a contiguous owner. But when the land block no.37/A is owned by the purchaser to the extent of 40 R land, it cannot be held that he is not contagious owner for purchasing 10 R land as prohibited under the said Act. Said 7/12 extract available on internet is taken on record and marked as ‘X-1’ for identification. 6. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Applications for adducing additional evidence deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the Civil Applications are allowed. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] mubashir