1 47 FA 340 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 47 FIRST APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2018 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR SHANKARRAO INGALE AND ANR ... Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellants Mr. Ajinkya S. Deshpande h/f. Mr. Amit S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 28th September 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.01.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.825 of 1998, the appellants have presented this First Appeal. 2. At the instance of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal considering the very short controversy involved in the matter. 3. The land of the respondents/claimants was acquired by the appellants for rehabilitation of earthquake-affected persons. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.09.1995. Thereafter, pursuant to the 2026:BHC-AUG:44192 2 47 FA 340 OF 2018 subsequent procedure under the Act, an award came to be passed on 11.06.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held the respondents/claimants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.340/- per R. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation, the respondents/claimants approached the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, District Latur under Land Acquisition Reference Case No.825 of 1998 taking recourse to Section 18 of the Act. 5. During the proceedings, the respondents/claimants produced on record a sale deed dated 06.04.1992 at Exhibit 32 for the purpose of comparison and to ascertain the correct valuation. The said sale deed pertained to the land adjacent to the claimants' land situated in Survey No.138. 6. The Reference Court observed that the subject matter property of the sale instance at Exhibit 32 could be referred to for fixing the proper valuation of the acquired land. The Reference Court further observed, upon perusal of Exhibit 32 as also Exhibit 51, which is the non-agricultural/residential purpose usage order issued by the Additional Tahsildar (N.A.), that the said sale instance was the best piece of evidence, 3 47 FA 340 OF 2018 being in respect of the land just adjacent to the acquired land for determining the correct compensation. 7. In view of the above, the Reference Court held that the subject matter land of the respondents/claimants had fetched non-agricultural potentiality. Thus, the Reference Court granted enhancement in compensation at the rate of Rs.3.17 per sq. ft. Feeling dissatisfied thereby, the appellants have presented this appeal. 8. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would strongly submit that the Reference Court has drawn an incorrect inference. He would submit that the sale instance and the N.A. order at Exhibit 51 cannot be relied solely on the basis for assessing the compensation at a per sq.ft. rate. Mr. Sonpawale concludes his submissions with a contention that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award under challenge be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Ajinkya Deshpande h/f. Mr. Amit Deshpande, learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents would advocate the findings rendered by the Reference Court. He would submit that the best evidence was produced by the claimants before the Reference Court which is rightly accepted 4 47 FA 340 OF 2018 and relied upon for granting just and proper compensation. With this, Mr. Deshpande prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. With the able assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I have gone through the case papers. 11. No doubt, the subject matter land of this appeal was not officially or formally converted for non-agricultural use. However, the Reference Court accepted the evidence i.e. the sale instance which was in respect of a piece of land just adjacent to the subject matter land. The said piece of land which was cited by the claimants during the trial, was converted by the competent authority for non-agricultural/residential usage. To that extent, there is no dispute. 12. Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is a matter of beneficial legislation. What is necessary is the potentiality of the land for fixing appropriate compensation. Although the subject matter land was not classified as non- agricultural land, the compensation which would depend upon the potentiality of such land, is rightly granted by the Reference Court in comparison with the adjacent piece of land. 5 47 FA 340 OF 2018 13. What is material is the correct valuation. The Reference Court has rightly observed that although the Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation on the basis of per R for the purpose of granting appropriate enhancement, the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate per sq. ft. Obviously, these observations are in the light of the evidence at Exhibits 32 and 51. 14. For the sake of convenience, paragraph No.11 of the impugned judgment and award is reproduced as follows : “11. Now, we have to consider, which sale instance brought on record by claimants and State is reliable. On perusal of the evidence led by claimants, it appears to me that the sale instance in respect of land survey No. 138 below Exh. 32 is adjoining to the acquired lands, which is executed on 06.04.1992 for the consideration of Rs. 6,000/- in respect of area 86 ft. X 22 ft. Therefore, sale instance of adjoining to acquire land is most important document for determination of market price of acquired lands and thus, I have no reason to discard said sale instance, merely because land in sale instance Exh. 32 is executed and purchased on footage basis and thus, I discard remaining sale instances brought by claimants as well as State- respondents on the record and adopted sale instance below Exh. 32. On perusal of the sale-deed Exh. 32, it appears to me that the land in sale instance bearing land survey No. 138 is converted to N. A. By revenue case No. 37/89 dated 18.01.1989. On perusal of Exh. 51 brought by claimants on record, it appears to me that Additional Tahsildar (N. A.), Latur has converted land survey No. 138 of village Sarwadi for residential purpose, determining N. A. Assessment 6 47 FA 340 OF 2018 Rs. 230/-. On perusal of the sale instance Exh. 32 and N. A. Order below Exh. 51, it appears to me that the land in sale instance being adjoining to the land survey No. 139 is having N. A. Potentiality.” 15. For the reasons recorded above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Reference Court. In view of this, I find that no case is made out to call for interference with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. 16. Hence, I pass the following order : O R D E R I. The First Appeal stands dismissed. II. The claimants/respondents are permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon, deposited by the acquiring body in this Court, if not withdrawn earlier. III. The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference Court. IV. The earlier security offered, if any, stands discharged. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) PRW