1 of 5 910-FA.1849.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1849 OF 2008 TUKARAM BANDAPPA BIRADAR L.RS. SHIVDAS L.RS. KAMALBAI AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR ... Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS TUKARAM BANDAPPA BIRADAR AND ORS … Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State. Mr. P. P. Dudile, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2.1 to 2.3. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1983, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeals, the Appellants/Original Claimants as well as the State are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.12.2005 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, 2026:BHC-AUG:44661 2 of 5 910-FA.1849.2008 Udgir in LAR No.1830/2001 (Old No.299/1988), whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation in favour of the Claimants. 3. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:- (i) The lands of the Claimants, admeasuring 1 Hectare 59 R out of land bearing Survey No.178 and 0.83 R out of land bearing Survey No.179, situated at village Jawalga, Taluka Udgir (now Deoni), District Latur, were acquired for the purpose of K. T. Weir, Girkchal Project. (ii) The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) came to be published on 25.08.1983. (iii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award on 16.09.1986 and granted the rate of Rs.174.90/- per R for 83 R of irrigated land and the rate of Rs.121.80/- per R for 1 Hectare 59 R of land. Being aggrieved thereby, the Claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. (iv) The Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits-53, 54 and 55 and sought higher compensation than that awarded by the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.450/- per R. Therefore, the Claimants have filed the present appeal. 4. Mr. V. V. Ingale, learned Advocate for the Appellants submits 3 of 5 910-FA.1849.2008 that the Claimants have relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-53, which is dated 29.03.1984, whereby 22 R of land from village Dhangarwadi was sold for Rs.17,000/- along with the share in the well. He further submits that, as per the sale instance below Exhibit-54, 2 Acres 38 R of land from village Gurdhal was sold for Rs.49,000/-. As regards the sale instance below Exhibit-55, 1 Acre 1 R of land from village Devani was sold for Rs.30,000/-. He submits that all these villages are adjacent to the acquired village Jawalga and, therefore, the learned Reference Court ought to have relied upon the said sale instances and enhanced the compensation for the Claimants. However, the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instances from the same village, which were referred to by the SLAO while determining the compensation, without considering the sale instances below Exhibits-53, 54 and 55. 5. Mr. S. G. Sangle, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, submits that the sale instances below Exhibits-53, 54 and 55 are from different villages and, once the sale instances from the acquired village were available, there was no necessity to consider the sale instances from different villages. He submits that the SLAO has rightly determined the compensation for the acquired village and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties 4 of 5 910-FA.1849.2008 and with their assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. As regards the land acquired, the same was situated at village Jawalga, Taluka Udgir, and before the learned Reference Court, there were sale instances available from the acquired village. On the basis of the same, the SLAO had determined the compensation. The Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits-53 to 55, which are from village Dhangarwadi, Gurdhal and Devani. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly not considered the said sale instances, but, on the basis of the sale instances available from the same village and after considering the highest sale consideration, granted the rate of Rs.450/- per R. Therefore, I find that the learned Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation by granting just and proper compensation. 7. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon the sale instances from other villages when the sale instances from the acquired village are available. It is not the case that the Claimants have relied upon the sale instances from the acquired village and that those were not considered. Rather, the entire claim is based upon the sale instances from other villages. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Reference Court has rightly determined the compensation and there is no further scope to grant any further enhancement. 8. Hence, First Appeal No.1849 of 2008 filed by the Claimants 5 of 5 910-FA.1849.2008 is dismissed. 9. As regards First Appeal No.88 of 2017 filed by the State, the SLAO had granted the rate of Rs.121.80/- per R, whereas the learned Reference Court has granted the rate of Rs.450/- per R. Therefore, the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court is within the limits of four times the compensation awarded by the SLAO. 10. In fact the State Government vide Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference, if compensation is enhanced only upto four times. 11. Hence, the First Appeal No.88 of 2017 filed by the State is dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef