204-FA-2408-2008.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 204 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2408 OF 2008 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Dashrath Dadarao Sathe …… Mr. B.A. Shinde, AGP P, Advocate for Appellant Mr. V.V. Ingale, Advocate for Respondent ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.12 of 2007 (Old LAR No.82 of 2002), 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 the statutory benefits. 3. The land belonging to the respondent-claimant, admeasuring 1 Hectare 12 R from Survey No.70, situated at Village Makani, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the rehabilitation of earthquake-affected persons of Village Makani. The notification under 2026:BHC-AUG:45707 204-FA-2408-2008.odt 2 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 29.09.1994. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 03.03.1998, determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the respondent-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 adduced by the parties, the learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 20.12.2007, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.13/- per Sq. Ft., together with all the statutory benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. The 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 on record. It is submitted that the sale instance relied upon by the respondent-claimant was not a comparable transaction and that the learned Reference Court had awarded excessive compensation without any legal basis. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Ingale appearing for the respondent-claimant supported the impugned Judgment and Award. He 204-FA-2408-2008.odt 3 tenders across the Bar a copy of the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.2171 of 2009 with connected matter, wherein enhancement of compensation was granted in favour of the claimants whose lands were acquired from the same village, i.e. Village Makani, for the same project, namely, rehabilitation of earthquake-affected persons of Village Makani. It is submitted that the appeal preferred by the State therein came to be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment and Award as well and the material placed on record. 8. It is an admitted position that, by order dated 03.02.2026, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in First Appeal No.2171 of 2009 with connected matter, granted enhancement of compensation in favour of the claimants whose lands were acquired from the same village, i.e. Village Makani, for the same project, namely, rehabilitation of earthquake-affected persons of Village Makani. The appeal preferred by the State therein came to be dismissed. 9. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of the lands acquired from the same village and for the same project, I see no reason to take a different view in the present appeal. No case is, therefore, made out for interference with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court. 204-FA-2408-2008.odt 4 10. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed. 11. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane