901-FA-2021-2013.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2021 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Shamabai Bhaguram Bhandare And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2028 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Vishnudas Nivruti Gude And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2029 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Madhukar Jetiba Khandade And Anohter AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2025 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Gowardhan Venkat Bhandare And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2024 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Pundlik Jaywant Sirsat And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2022 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Jaganath Kashinath Sirsat And Another AND 2026:BHC-AUG:43311 901-FA-2021-2013.odt 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 937 OF 2015 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Gangaram Ranba Kasture And Others AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2023 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division, Latur VERSUS Ramchandra Chansham Sul And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2026 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division, Latur VERSUS Balaji Dattu Sirsat And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2027 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division VERSUS Maheboob Rashid Shaha And Another …… Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate for Appellant-Acquiring Body Mr. P.G. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimants in FA/2021/2013 Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for Respondent No.1- Claimants in FAs/2028, 2029, 2024, 2023, 2026, 2027 of 2013 & 937/2015 Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimanat in FA/2025/2013 Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondent No.2-State in all FAs …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 901-FA-2021-2013.odt 3 2. By the present appeals, the appellant-acquiring body challenges the common impugned Judgment and Award dated 28.03.2011 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Latur, in L.A.R. Nos.1132 of 2000, 1133 of 2000, 1134 of 2000, 1135 of 2000, 1136 of 2000, 1137 of 2000, 1138 of 2000, 1139 of 2000, 1140 of 2000 and 1141 of 2000, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands. 3. The lands belonging to the claimants were acquired for the Renapur Medium Project at village Pangaon, Taluka Renapur, District Latur. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), was published on 07.11.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.03.1999 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.92,000/- per hectare, i.e. Rs.36,800/- per acre, for dry lands and double the compensation awarded for dry lands for irrigated lands. The claimants accepted the said compensation under protest, reserving their right to claim enhanced compensation. Being dissatisfied with the award, the claimants preferred the aforesaid L.A.Rs. under Section 18 of the Act. 4. The learned Reference Court, by relying upon the judgment passed in earlier L.A.R. Nos.942 of 2000 and 195 of 2001, determined the market value and granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per 901-FA-2021-2013.odt 4 acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the appellant- acquiring body has preferred the present appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring body submits that the learned Reference Court has granted excessive compensation by relying upon sale instances which were not comparable with the acquired lands. It is submitted that the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court is unwarranted and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the Record and Proceedings. 7. It appears that the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgment passed in earlier L.A.R. Nos.942 of 2000 and 195 of 2001, whereby compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for irrigated lands, Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands was determined for lands acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. The learned Reference Court has also considered the 7/12 extracts and, upon consideration of the evidence on record, determined the market value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands. 901-FA-2021-2013.odt 5 8. Considering the aforesaid material on record, I find that the learned Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands. The enhanced compensation is slightly more than four times the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 9. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award. No case is made out for interference in the present appeals. Hence, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 10. The First Appeals are dismissed. 11. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane