13-FA-2744-2017.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2744 OF 2017 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Pandurang Bhanudas Randive (Died) Through His L.Rs. Minakshri Pandurang Randive …… Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellant-State Ms. Prerna Pawar, Advocate h/f Mr. D.B. Pawar, Advocate for Respondents- Claimants …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule for the appellant-State and learned counsel Ms. Prerna Pawar, holding for learned counsel Mr. D.B. Pawar, for the respondent-claimants. 2. This appeal takes exception to the common Judgment and Award dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference No.431 of 2002, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant at the rate of Rs.58,950/- per Acre, together with the statutory benefits. 2026:BHC-AUG:43301 13-FA-2744-2017.odt 2 3. The land belonging to the respondent-claimant, admeasuring 1 Hectare 36 R out of Gut No.41/B, situated at village Balpirwadi (Sarola), Taluka and District Osmanabad, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Percolation Tank No.2 at Balpirwadi (Sarola). The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 07.04.1994. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 15.05.1997 and determined the market value at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per Hectare. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the proper market value of the acquired land. 4. Before the learned Reference Court, reliance was placed upon the sale instance at Exhibit 24 dated 21.11.1994, under which 78 R land was sold for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. On the basis of the material placed on record, the learned Reference Court applied a deduction of 15% and determined the market value at Rs.39,300/- per Acre for Jirayat land. The learned Reference Court thereafter added 50% to the said amount, considering the acquired land to be seasonally irrigated, and consequently determined the market value at Rs.58,950/- per Acre, together with the statutory benefits. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the State. 5. Learned AGP for the appellant-State submits that the learned Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the market value to the 13-FA-2744-2017.odt 3 extent awarded. According to him, having regard to the sale instance at Exhibit 24 and the nature and extent of the acquired land, a higher deduction ought to have been applied. He submits that the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court is excessive and imposes an unwarranted burden on the public exchequer. He, therefore, submits that the impugned Judgment and Award warrants interference. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant supports the impugned Judgment and Award. She submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 24 is a genuine and duly proved transaction. Since the sale instance pertains to another village, the learned Reference Court has already made an appropriate deduction of 15% while determining the market value. She further submits that, after determining the rate for Jirayat land, the learned Reference Court has added 50% amount on account of the acquired land being seasonally irrigated. According to her, the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is based on the evidence on record and calls for no interference. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, have perused the record and proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. The record reveals that the claimant relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 24. The said transaction is dated 21.11.1994 and concerns 78 R land 13-FA-2744-2017.odt 4 sold for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. The learned Reference Court, while assessing the market value on the basis of the said sale instance, has applied a deduction of 15% and thereafter determined the rate at Rs.39,300/- per Acre for Jirayat land. The learned Reference Court has then considered the seasonally irrigated nature of the acquired land and has added 50% thereto, resulting in the market value of Rs.58,950/- per Acre. 9. The principal grievance of the appellant-State is with regard to the extent of deduction applied to the sale instance at Exhibit 24. However, the appellant-State has not been able to demonstrate from the evidence on record that the said transaction was not genuine, nor has it been shown that the land covered by the said transaction possessed any such material advantage or superior characteristics as would require a higher deduction than the one applied by the learned Reference Court. Significantly, no better or more comparable sale instance has been brought on record by the appellant-State so as to dislodge the sale instance relied upon by the learned Reference Court. 10. The learned Reference Court has thus considered the evidence available on record and has made a deduction of 15% before determining the market value for Jirayat land. It has thereafter granted an addition of 50% on account of the seasonally irrigated character of the acquired land. The appellant-State has not pointed out any perversity or patent error in this assessment so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13-FA-2744-2017.odt 5 11. Upon an independent re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are based upon the material available before it and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference. The market value determined by the learned Reference Court at the rate of Rs.58,950/- per Acre, together with the statutory benefits, therefore, does not call for interference. 12. Consequently, the First Appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane