Judgment FA-602-2021 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.602 OF 2021 APPELLANTS (on RA) (Ori. Res. 3) : VIDC, through the Executive Engineer, Nimn Painganga Project, Yavatmal. ... VERSUS… RESPONDENTS (on RA) (Ori. Claimant) 1. Sau Archana Sanjayrao Zile, Aged Major, Occ: Household, R/o. Parsodi, Tq. Kalamb Dist. Yavatmal (Ori. Res. 1) 2. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal. (Ori. Res. 2) 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal, dist. Yavatmal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.D. Akhade h/f. Mr. H.D. Marahte, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. S.V. Ingole, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . DATE : 16/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. With the consent of learned counsels for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. In the present appeal challenge is to the judgment and award dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal, in Land Acquisition Case No.119 of 2016. The undisputed facts of the present appeal are that the respondent No.1 Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:12469 Judgment FA-602-2021 J..odt 2 is the owner of Gat No.16/2-a, admeasuring 1 H 31R of Mouza : Dodapur, Taluka Kalamb District Yavatmal, out of which admeasuring 0.22 H.R. land, is the subject matter in the present appeal. The State Government, by issuing a notification dated 21.06.2007 initiated land acquisition proceedings for the Bembla Project (Canal). In the said land acquisition proceedings, the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his Award dated 03.09.2009, awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.79,500/- per hectare, to respondent No.1 for the acquired land. 3. The respondent No.1 being dissatisfied with the meagre compensation awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Officer, preferred the reference proceedings. According to her, considering the fertility, potential and location of the land, she is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare. In support of her submissions, she relied upon various sale instances and the decisions which were rendered in other land acquisition proceedings. The learned Reference Court by considering oral as well as documentary evidence, by the impugned judgment, has awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs.4,20,000/- per hectare to the respondent No.1. 4. The appellant-Acquiring Body, has approached before this Court, by way of filing the present appeal. According to the appellant, Pvf Judgment FA-602-2021 J..odt 3 the learned Reference Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and thereby, awarded the exorbitant compensation to the present respondent No.1. According to the appellant, every document was required to be looked into and the sale instances were required to be compared with the land which is acquired in the matter and thereafter, decide the issue, but, the learned Reference Court, failed to do this exercise and hence, the interference of this Court is required in the matter. 5. During the course of arguments, respondent No.1 has pointed out that this Court has occasion to decide similar land of village Mouza : Dodapur, Taluka Kalamb, District Yavatmal, out of Gat No.21/1 admeasuring 2.73 HR, which was also a dry crop land. The said land was acquired in the acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 21.06.2007 issued by the State Government for Bembla Project (Canal). It is pointed out that in the said proceedings, this Court has determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.4,20,000/- per hector. 6. It is further pointed out that the land involved in the First Appeal No.383/2022 and in the present appeal is situated in the same village, under same notification, the land was acquired. Therefore, the Pvf Judgment FA-602-2021 J..odt 4 case of appellant is covered by judgment of this Court. Hence, applying the rule of parity, respondent No.1 is entitled for same market value in the present appeal. 7. Considering the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Reference Court and the judgment passed by this Court, I am satisfied that the learned Reference Court has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land and therefore, no indulgence is called for in the present appeal. 8. Accordingly, the First Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Consequently, respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount of compensation deposited by the appellant before this Court, subject to satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial), along with interest accrued thereupon. (PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf