201-FA-1059-2007.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 201 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2007 The State Of Mah.thro.collector,osmanabad. VERSUS Namdeorao Tatyaba Mane. ……. Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellant Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate fr Respondent …... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned AGP Mr. Phule, appearing for the appellant-State and the learned counsel Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, appearing for the respondent- claimant. 2. The present appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 30.12.1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.156 of 1993, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference filed by the claimant and enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent-claimant together with the statutory benefits. 3. The land belonging to the respondent-claimant, situated at Shingoli, Taluka Kallam, District Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Medium Project at Shingoli. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 09.03.1987. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of 2026:BHC-AUG:45708 201-FA-1059-2007.odt 2 the Act on 31.07.1989, determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.190/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, the claimant accepted the same 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 30.12.1993, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.975/- per R, together with the statutory benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. The learned AGP for the appellant-State submits that the learned Reference Court has awarded excessive compensation. He submits that, though a sale instance pertaining to land situated in the same village as the acquired land is available on record, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 15 pertaining to village Yermala and has consequently determined the market value at the excessive rate of Rs.975/- per R. He further submits that the evidence on record does not justify such enhancement and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award warrants interference. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supports the impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that the learned Reference Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the sale instance at Exhibit 15, which is proximate in point of 201-FA-1059-2007.odt 3 time to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He submits that the appellant has not brought on record any better or comparable sale instance to displace the determination made by the learned Reference Court. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the Record and Proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. The learned Reference Court has, inter alia, relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 15 dated 25.11.1986, pertaining to land situated at village Yermala, whereby 1 Acre of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The said transaction had taken place about three and a half months prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the sale instance is reasonably proximate in point of time to the relevant date. The learned Reference Court has considered the said sale instance along with the oral evidence adduced by the claimant and, upon appreciation of the material on record, determined the market value at Rs.975/- per R. 9. It is true that the sale instance at Exhibit 15 relates to village Yermala and not to the acquired land situated at Shingoli. However, the mere circumstance that the sale instance is from a different village would not, by itself, render the same irrelevant, particularly when the transaction is proximate in point of time and has been considered by the learned Reference Court along with the other evidence on record. The sale 201-FA-1059-2007.odt 4 consideration of Rs.30,000/- for 1 Acre works out to Rs.750/- per R. The learned Reference Court has, after considering the evidence led by the claimant, determined the market value at Rs.975/- per R. The appellant- State has not pointed out any material error in the appreciation of the evidence nor has it brought on record any better or more comparable sale instance which would justify interference with the rate determined by the learned Reference Court. 10. It is well settled that the market value has to be determined on the basis of the best available comparable sale instance. The sale deed at Exhibit-16 satisfies the test of comparability, inasmuch as it relates to land situated in the same village and is reasonably proximate in point of time to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The deductions made by the learned Reference Court are also reasonable. The appellant-State has not placed on record any better or more comparable sale instance so as to demonstrate that the compensation determined by the Reference Court is excessive. 11. Upon an independent re-appreciation of the evidence, I do not find that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The compensation determined by the learned Reference Court appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 201-FA-1059-2007.odt 5 12. The First Appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane