31-FA-4532-2017.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 31 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4532 OF 2017 Anant Bhanudas Lomte VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others …… Mr. A.S. More, Advocate for Appellant Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2 …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant–original claimant and the learned AGP for the respondent–State. 2. The present First Appeal is preferred by the appellant–original claimant challenging the Judgment and Award dated 17.06.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.81 of 2006, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land while treating it as dry-crop land. 3. The land of the appellant, admeasuring 41 R out of Gat No.34/1, situated at village Domgaon, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad, was acquired for the construction of the Sina Kolegaon Medium Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), was published on 29.09.1985. The Special Land Acquisition 2026:BHC-AUG:46164 31-FA-4532-2017.odt 2 Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act, determining compensation at the rate of Rs.37,093/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 4. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.54,000/- per acre for dry-crop land, together with statutory benefits. The appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by treating the acquired land as irrigated land. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the acquired land was irrigated and that the appellant was cultivating sugarcane. He contends that the learned Reference Court has not properly appreciated the evidence relating to the cultivation of sugarcane and has erroneously treated the acquired land as dry-crop land. He, therefore, submits that the appellant is entitled to compensation on the basis that the acquired land was irrigated. 6. Per contra, the learned AGP supports the impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that the learned Reference Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the acquired land was irrigated. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 31-FA-4532-2017.odt 3 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned Judgment and Award and the record and proceedings. 8. The principal issue for consideration is whether the appellant has established that the acquired land was irrigated. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 7/12 extract at Exhibit 31, pertaining to Gat No.34, which records cultivation of sugarcane during the years 1998–1999 and from 2002–2003 to 2009–2010. However, the entries regarding cultivation of sugarcane subsequent to the relevant date of acquisition do not, by themselves, establish that the acquired land was irrigated at the time of acquisition. No cogent oral or documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish that irrigation facilities were available to the acquired land at the relevant time. 9. In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the acquired land was irrigated at the relevant time. Therefore, no interference with the finding of the learned Reference Court treating the acquired land as dry-crop land is warranted. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis that the acquired land was irrigated. 10. On consideration of the aforesaid material, I find that the learned Reference Court has assessed the evidence relating to the irrigation status of the acquired land and recorded a finding that the appellant failed to 31-FA-4532-2017.odt 4 establish that the land was fully or seasonally irrigated. The entries relating to sugarcane cultivation in certain years, particularly those subsequent to the acquisition, are insufficient to establish the irrigation status of the acquired land at the relevant time. No perversity or illegality is demonstrated in the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court. The appellant has, therefore, failed to make out a case for further enhancement of compensation by treating the acquired land as irrigated land. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12. The First Appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane