233-FA-837-2011.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 233 FIRST APPEAL NO. 837 OF 2011 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Kanchanbai Dharmachand Khabiya And Others …… Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for Appellant-State …… 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 15.03.2004 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Land Acquisition Reference No.241 of 1993, 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 2 Hectares 71 R from Survey No.86/1, situated at village Darewade, Taluka and District Ahmednagar, belonging to the respondent-claimant, was acquired for MIRC. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), on 21.05.1988 and awarded total compensation of Rs.30,697/-. Being dissatisfied with the compensation 2026:BHC-AUG:46165 233-FA-837-2011.odt 2 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 evidence on record, the learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 15.03.2004, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8/- per sq. meter and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,16,800/-, along with statutory benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Reference Court has granted excessive compensation without sufficient evidence. He submitted that the material relied upon by the Reference Court did not justify the rate awarded and, therefore, 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 has rightly considered the evidence of PW-1 and the common Judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.62 of 1990 at Exhibit- 17, as well as the non-agricultural potential of the acquired land. He submitted that, after applying appropriate deductions, the Reference Court has awarded a reasonable rate and, therefore, 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. 233-FA-837-2011.odt 3 8. The learned Reference Court has considered the testimony of PW-1 and the certified copy of the common Judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.62 of 1990 at Exhibit-17. The said Judgment was relevant for determination of the market value, wherein the market value of the acquired land, including Block No.81/3 of village Darewadi, was determined at Rs.25/- per sq. meter, without applying the necessary deductions. 9. The learned Reference Court also considered that the acquired land was situated near MIRC and that the claimants had placed material showing its non-agricultural potentiality. It further noticed that the adjacent land acquired for MIRC had been valued at Rs.11.25 per sq. meter about two years prior to the relevant notification. Having regard to the location and potentiality of the acquired land, the Reference Court assessed its market value at Rs.20/- per sq. meter. 10. The Reference Court thereafter applied a deduction of 40% towards the size and development of the acquired tract, bringing the rate to Rs.12/- per sq. meter. It further deducted one-third towards development charges, having regard to the fact that the acquired land was undeveloped agricultural land without roads, drainage and other amenities, and accordingly determined the net market value at Rs.8/- per sq. meter. The calculation of compensation is also consistent with the area acquired, namely 2 Hectares 71 R, equivalent to 27,100 sq. meters, and at Rs.8/- per sq. meter the amount works out to Rs.2,16,800/-. 233-FA-837-2011.odt 4 11. The above determination is based on the evidence considered by the learned Reference Court and the deductions have been specifically assigned reasons. The appellant-State has not pointed out any error in the aforesaid assessment or brought on record any better material warranting a different determination. Upon independent re-appreciation of the evidence, no perversity, illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned Judgment and Award so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. 12. The First Appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane