FA 1433/2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1433 OF 2007 RAMESH GANPATRAO KORDE AND ORS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.B. Bhapkar AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. S.S. Dande ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : September 22, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1987, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellants/original claimants assails the judgment and award dated 4.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 630/1997 by which the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation, but not granted compensation as claimed by the claimants. 3. The land of the claimants admesuring 2 H. 70 R. from Block No. 340 situated at village Wadgaon (Siddheshwar), Taluka and District Osmanabad was acquired for the construction of percolation tank, Wadgaon (Siddheshwar). Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 16.7.1987. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 30.7.1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on 4.8.1989 and has granted very meager compensation. After receipt of the compensation under protest, the claimants filed reference under section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the market value of 2026:BHC-AUG:43599 FA 1433/2007 2 the acquired land. The claimants relied upon the two sale instances, Exh. 15 dated 12.9.1991 and Exh. 16 dated 7.2.1989 from village Shekapur. But as those sale instances were executed after publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, the learned reference court has not considered the same. The reference court by relying upon the sale instances from the same village and by considering the highest sale instance has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per H. As the inadequate compensation was granted by the reference court, present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, learned counsel for the appellants/original claimants submits that as the possession was taken over on 30.7.1986 and admittedly no sale instance was executed in 1986 from the same village, therefore, the claimants have relied upon the sale instances from adjacent village which was at the distance of 1 k.m. He submits that even the post notification sale instances can be considered to determine the market value of the acquired land, but the reference court has wrongly discarded the same as the said sale instances were executed after section 4 notification. He submits that the acquired land is irrigated land and there was well in existence in the acquired land, but the learned reference court has wrongly treated the acquired land as Jirayat land. Therefore, he submits that though the sale instance Exh. 15 was from the different village, the same can be relied upon by applying certain deductions and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 5. Per contra, Mr. A.D. Wange, learned AGP on behalf of the State submits that it is not the case that no sale instance from village Wadgaon (Siddheshwar) were available and the fact is that there were five sale instances from the village from where present land was acquired and the FA 1433/2007 3 SLAO has considered the same and considering the highest sale instance, the learned reference court has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per H. for acquired land. He submits that though there was existence of well in acquired land, the crop pattern does not show that the claimants were not taking any crops which suggests that the acquired lands were irrigated lands. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. The sale instances, Exh. 15 is dated 12.9.1991 and the sale instance Exh. 16 is dated 7.2.1989 and section 4 notification came to be issued on 16.7.1987 and therefore, admittedly both the sale instances were after post notification and also from the different village. 7. In this case, it is not the case of the claimants that from the same village from where the lands were acquired, there were no sale instances available. The possession was taken over in the year 1986 and the sale instances prior to taking over the possession were available. The SLAO has also considered the five sale instances from the same village and determined the rate of compensation. Though before the SLAO there were five sale instances, the reference court has relied upon the sale instance dated 23.4.1986 which was from same village i.e. Wadgaon (Siddheshwar) by which 81 R. land was sold for Rs.30,000/- and the rate comes to Rs.37,000/- per H. and the reference court by rounding off the amount granted compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per H. But the award of SLAO Exh. 17 reveals that in the acquired land there was well and therefore, it can safely considered that the acquired land is seasonally irrigated land and therefore, this Court holds that the acquired land can be FA 1433/2007 4 treated as seasonally irrigated lands and therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per H. for their acquired land as the same was seasonally irrigated land. Hence, following order is passed. O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per H. for their acquired seasonally irrigated land. (iii) The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to interest and all consequential statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. (iv) The claimant shall not be entitled to receive interest and other statutory benefits for the delayed period, if any, i.e. from the date of award till the date of decision of this Court. (v) The claimant to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount. (vi) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified accordingly. (vii) Rest of the award shall remain unaltered. (viii) Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/