FA 3641/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 27 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3641 OF 2011 GOVIND ALASING PAWAR AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.S. Kurundkar h/f. Mr. M.D. Narwadkar AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. R.D. Biradar ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : September 22, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellants/original claimants assail the judgment and award dated 29.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in LAR No. 235/2000, whereby the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation, but not granted as claimed by the appellants. 3. The land of the claimants admeasuring 2 H. 85 R. from Survey No. 39 situated at village Chorad-Junapani, Taluka Mahur, District Nanded was acquired for the purpose of Palaiguda Brahad Minor Irrigation Project Submergence area at village Chorad-Junapani, Taluka Mahur, District Nanded. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 19.6.1997. It was the contention of the appellants that in the acquired land there were 888 orange fruit bearing trees, 118 teak wood trees, 4 Moha trees and one well and therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive total compensation amount of Rs.21,08,746/- for acquired land and 2026:BHC-AUG:44392 FA 3641/11 2 trees, however, the learned reference court, without considering the evidence on record and only by relying upon the award passed in LAR No. 283/2000, LAR No. 280/2000 and LAR No. 268/2000, arising out of the same award determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.48,000/- per H. which was very inadequate and hence, the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. S.S. Kurundkar h/f. Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that before the reference court the claimants relied upon the sale instances, Exhs. 58 and 59. By the sale instance, Exh. 58, 40 R. land from Gat No. 14 situated at village Bhorad (Palaituda), Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded was sold for Rs.22,000/- which is adjacent village from where land in the present matter was acquired. As regards sale instance Exh. 59 is concerned, 47 R. land from Gat No. 31 situated at village Chorad- Junapani, Taluka Mahur was sold for Rs.50,000/-, which was from the same village from where the land in the present case was acquired. So, he prays to grant rate as per the above sale instances and claimed enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP appearing for the State submits that as regards sale instance Exh. 58 is concerned, that was in respect of land from different village and from different taluka and as regards sale instance Exh. 59 is concerned, that was in respect of land from the same village, but that was in respect of land from Gat No. 31 and the acquired land is from Gat No. 39. He submits that both the lands are not adjacent to each other and therefore, both the sale instances cannot be considered as comparable sale instances. He therefore, submits that the reference court has rightly determined the compensation and there is no scope to grant enhancement further. FA 3641/11 3 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their able assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings, impugned judgment and award, the sale instances. The claimants relied upon two sale instances, Exhs. 58 and 59. As regards sale instance, Exh. 58 is concerned, that was from different village and even taluka is also different and therefore, the same cannot be considered as comparable sale instance. 7. As regards sale instance Exh. 59 is concerned, it was in respect of the land from the same village from where the present land was acquired, by which 47 R. land from Gat No. 31 of the same village was sold for Rs. 50,000/-. After going through the record, it revealed that the though from the same village Gat No. 31 is abutting to the field Gat No. 39 and therefore, the sale instance Exh. 59 can be considered as comparable sale instance. The sale instance, Exh. 59, was in respect of the irrigated land and therefore, after applying deductions of 50%, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.53,000/- per H. 8. As regards claim of the claimants in respect of acquired trees and well is concerned, it is the case of the claimants that 888 orange fruit bearing trees, 118 teak wood trees, 4 Moha trees and one well was situated in the acquired land. The reference court has considered the case of the claimants in respect of fruit bearing trees and well and has granted 20% increase on the amount determined by the SLAO. The SLAO has granted total amount of Rs.1,21,220/- for the trees and Rs.7216/- for well. The learned reference court, in addition to the amount granted by SLAO, by increasing 20% amount, granted Rs.25,000/- towards trees and Rs.1500/- towards well. Even the learned counsel for the claimants also fairly submits that the claimants are not claiming any compensation towards trees and FA 3641/11 4 well. 9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following order :- O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.53,000/- per H. for their acquired land. (iii) The claimants are also entitled to all statutory benefits including interest under section 28 and 34 of the Act in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457 i.e from the date of award. (iv) The claimants to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount. (v) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified accordingly. (vi) Rest of the award shall remain unaltered. (vii) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/