209-FA-709-2009.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 209 FIRST APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra VERSUS Jagan Puna Koli (Died) Through L.Rs. Madhukar Jagan Koli and Others …… Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for Appellant-State Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Respondents-Claimans …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 25.04.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference No.127 of 2000, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), and enhanced the compensation awarded to the respondent-claimant along with the statutory benefits. 3. The respondent-claimant's land admeasuring 1 Hectare 19 R out of Gat No.54/B, situated at village Bhoras Bk. Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, came to be acquired for the purpose of submergence. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 14.03.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of the 2026:BHC-AUG:45705 209-FA-709-2009.odt 2 Act on 31.03.1999 and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,62,421/-. The claimant, accepted the said amount under protest, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned Reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, enhanced the market value to Rs.3,00,000/- per Hectare for jirayat land, Rs.6,00,000/- for bagayat lands, together with the statutory benefits. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 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. According to him, the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court was not a comparable transaction as it related to land situated at village Bhilkhed and not at village Bhoras. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supported the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court was a bona fide transaction relating to land situated at village Bhilkhed, which is adjacent to the acquired land at village Bhoras, and was executed on 02.02.1995, i.e. prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation, therefore prays to dismiss the appeal. 209-FA-709-2009.odt 3 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance dated 02.02.1995 relating to land situated at village Bhilkhed, an adjoining village, wherein 96 R land was sold for a consideration of Rs.2,65,000/- , therefore rate comes to Rs.2,76,041- per Hectare, and by giving 10% escalation for one year the rate comes to Rs.3,03,645/- per Hectare,, The learned reference Court fixt the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per Hectare and after considering the 7/12 extract treated the acquired land as jirayat land. Though the transaction does not relate to the same village, the fact that it pertains to an adjoining village would not, by itself, make the sale instance irrelevant. The transaction is prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the appellant has not pointed out any material circumstance demonstrating that the sale instance was not genuine or that the lands covered by the transaction were so dissimilar as to render it wholly incomparable. 9. Upon an independent consideration of the evidence on record, I find that the learned Reference Court has based its determination on the relevant material and has assigned separate rates having regard to the nature and classification of the land. The compensation determined by the learned Reference Court appears to be just, proper and reasonable. The findings 209-FA-709-2009.odt 4 recorded by the learned Reference Court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 11. The First Appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane