211-FA-954-2009.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 211 FIRST APPEAL NO. 954 OF 2009 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Narsing Mahada Suryawanshi Ramtirth …… Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellant-State Mr. G.D. Kale, Advocate for Respondents …... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 22.07.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference No.270 of 1992, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent-claimant along with statutory benefits. 3. The land admeasuring 29 R from Survey No.57, situated at village Dhanora, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur, belonging to the respondent- claimant, was acquired for the purpose of Lower Terna Left Canal under Manjara Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), was published on 07.07.1988. The Special 2026:BHC-AUG:46151 211-FA-954-2009.odt 2 Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 30.03.1991, determining the market value at Rs.15,500/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 22.07.1998, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.36,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.45,000/- per acre for irrigated lands, along with statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence. He submitted that the sale instance relied upon by the claimant was not comparable to the acquired land and that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court was excessive. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supported the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the learned Reference Court rightly relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit-16 211-FA-954-2009.odt 3 pertaining to village Malegaon (Jewari), which was executed prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He further submitted that, after making appropriate escalation having regard to the time gap, the learned Reference Court rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the material available on record. 8. The record reveals that the claimant relied upon the certified copy of the registered sale deed at Exhibit-16. The said sale deed dated 06.12.1983 relates to land admeasuring 20 gunthas from Survey Nos.46 and 78, situated at village Malegaon (Jewari), which was sold for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the sale consideration works out to Rs.30,000/- per acre, as 20 gunthas constitute half an acre. The transaction was effected about four years and seven months prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 07.07.1988. The learned Reference Court, therefore, was justified in considering the said transaction for determination of the market value. 9. The learned Reference Court did not mechanically adopt the rate reflected in the sale deed at Exhibit-16. The rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre reflected in the said sale instance, if enhanced at the rate of 10% per year for the intervening period of five years, would work out to Rs.45,000/- per 211-FA-954-2009.odt 4 acre. The learned Reference Court accordingly determined the market value of the irrigated lands at Rs.45,000/- per acre. In respect of dry lands, it determined the market value at Rs.36,000/- per acre. Thus, the Reference Court has taken into consideration the nature of the acquired lands while determining the compensation and has not simply adopted the rate reflected in the sale instance. 10. The determination made by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to be without evidentiary basis. Exhibit-16 was executed prior to the relevant notification. The learned Reference Court considered the time gap between the sale transaction and the notification and applied escalation while determining the market value. It also maintained a distinction between irrigated and dry lands. The appellant-State has not brought on record any better comparable sale instance or other reliable material to establish that the rates determined by the learned Reference Court for the acquired lands are excessive. 11. It is well settled that while determining market value, the Court has to consider the best available evidence of comparable transactions and the relevant circumstances affecting the value of the acquired land. In the present case, the learned Reference Court has considered the sale instance at Exhibit-16, the time gap and the nature of the acquired lands before determining the market value. 12. Upon independent re-appreciation of the evidence, I find no 211-FA-954-2009.odt 5 perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court warranting interference in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The market value determined by the learned Reference Court appears to be supported by the evidence on record and does not call for interference. 13. The First Appeal is dismissed. 14. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane