1 30-FA.2265-23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 30 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2265 OF 2023 GINYANDEO CHAPLA RATHOD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Shubham D. Jaybhar h/f Mr. Jayabhar D. R. AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. N. Morampalle. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Hemant U. Dhage. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 17.02.2026 FINAL ORDER :- 1. Heard both sides. Taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent of the parties. 2. Appellant is questioning judgment and award dated 15.02.2012 passed in LAR. No.587 of 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Jaybhar submits that the highest sale instance at Exh.23 should have been considered and rate of Rs.5618/- should have been fixed by the Reference court. It is further submitted that in the alternative the rates in sale instance Exh.21 or 22 should have been fixed for the land in question. It is further submitted that the reasons assigned by the Reference Court for discarding the highest sale instance are unsustainable. It is further submits that village Nipani Jawalka and Pachegaon share the boundaries and there is no difference in the 1/5 2 30-FA.2265-23.odt potential of the land. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Dhage appearing for the acquiring body would submit that the Reference Court has taken into account of the sale exemplars and preferred to rely upon the rate fixed in LAR. No.37 of 2006 vide judgment dated 18.09.2006. It is submitted that all the sale instances are liable to be discarded because there is no similarity in the lands. It is submitted that in the present case, the land is dry land and the rates of the seasonal irrigated land cannot be made applicable. 5. Appellant’s land measuring 1 H. 27 R. from Gut No.214 from village Nipani Jawalka was acquired by notification issued on 31.10.2002. Award was passed on 17.08.2004. The rate offered by SLAO is Rs.750/- per R. for dry land. The Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.1400/- per R. treating it to be dry land. 6. Appellant has pressed into service three sale instances. One is of sale of 4 R. land dated 05.01.1996 for the rate of Rs.3625/-. Though this is highest one, its a sale of small piece of land. I am not inclined to accept the rate. The Reference Court has rightly discarded the same. Second sale instance is at Exh.21 for 25 R. of land sold on 19.04.1995. It was seasonally irrigated land and the rate is of Rs.2000/- per R. Third sale instance is at Exh.22 for sale of 128 R. of land sold on 23.04.1999 and rate is of Rs.2222/-. It is also seasonally irrigated land. 7. If sale instance is at Exh.21 and 22 are compared, sale instance at 2/5 3 30-FA.2265-23.odt Exh.22 is more akin to the market value. In that case, land was sold on 23.04.1999, preceding 03 years and 06 months of notification dated 31.10.2002. This Court had an occasion to accept the sale instance from village Pachegaon when lands from Nipani Jawalka was acquired. As the villages share common boundary, sale instance from Pachegaon was accepted in fixing the rate by common judgment dated 13.02.2026 passed in First Appeal No.571 of 2023 and connected matters. 8. As per sale instance at Exh.22, the rate is Rs.2222/-. Appellant is entitled to have escalation @ Rs.10% per annum. Adding the escalation of 35% the rate comes to Rs.3,000/- per R. for seasonally irrigated land. The rate for the dry land works out to be at Rs.2000/- per R. 9. The Reference Court relied on the rate fixed in LAR. No.37 of 2006. I am of the considered view that when sale instances are available the suitable sale instance should have been accepted for fixing the market value. I find that reasons assigned by the Reference Court for fixing the rate are unsustainable. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Dhage points out that award of interest is not in consonance with law land down by Full Bench in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari. It is rightly submitted that the appellant is entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of award. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also prayed for the rental compensation. Learned counsel Mr. Dhage opposes the submission on the 3/5 4 30-FA.2265-23.odt ground that appellant can resort to alternate remedy. This Court has already taken a view relying on the earlier judgments that claimants are entitled to have rental compensation which can be part of award of the Court. In First Appeal No.571 of 2023 and connected matters, this Court awarded rental compensation @ 9% per annum vide judgment dated 13.02.2026. Those are also appeals arising out of the same project and the lands were acquired from the same village. Appellant is entitled to have rental compensation @ of Rs.9% for taking over the possession. I, therefore, pass following order : ORDER (i) First appeal is allowed partly. (ii) The appellant shall be entitled to receive rate of Rs.2000/- per R. for dry land. (iii) The appellant shall not be entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. (iv) The appellant shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of award as per law laid down in the judgment of Full Bench in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141]. (v) The appellant shall be entitled to interest @ Rs.9% for enhanced compensation towards rental value. (vi) Save and except above modification. Impugned judgment 4/5 5 30-FA.2265-23.odt and award passed by Reference Court shall stand unaltered. (vii) The appellant shall pay deficit court fees, if any. (viii) Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court, if any. (ix) Award be drawn accordingly. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ... vmk/- 5/5