40-FA-677-2010.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 40 FIRST APPEAL NO. 677 OF 2010 Padmakar Ramrao Ambegaonkar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another …… Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for Appellant Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondent No.-State Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent No.3 …… 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 03.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.223 of 2003. 3. The claimant owned agricultural land from Block No.32, situated at village Vadgaon, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. A portion of the said land was acquired for the construction of a Percolation Tank at village Vadgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), was published on 28.11.2000. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 20.03.2002 and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.70,300/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 2026:BHC-AUG:46445 40-FA-677-2010.odt 2 4. The learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking further enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant seeks further enhancement in the compensation. The learned AGP supports the impugned Judgment and Award and submits that the learned Reference Court has already granted compensation at a rate higher than that indicated by the sale instance relied upon. He, therefore, submits that no further enhancement is warranted. 6. It is relevant to note that this Court has decided First Appeal No.678 of 2010, arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No.924 of 1988, today itself. The said matter concerns the same claimant, and the acquired land was treated as seasonally irrigated land. Having regard to the said determination, the classification of the land in the present matter is also required to be considered on that basis. As regards the well, the material referred to in the earlier proceedings indicates that the well had been acquired in the earlier acquisition and separate compensation had been granted for it in 1993. Compensation for the same well cannot be granted again in the present proceedings. Though the claimant’s evidence refers to the existence of a well at the time of the subsequent acquisition, the material referred to before this Court does not establish a sufficient basis for granting separate compensation for a distinct well acquired under the present notification. 40-FA-677-2010.odt 3 7. While determining the market value, the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 25 dated 10.05.2001. Under the said sale instance, land admeasuring 27 Are was sold for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The rate comes to Rs.1,85,185/- per Hectare 8. The sale instance at Exhibit 25 pertains to the same village, though the transaction is subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Even after applying a deduction of 10%, the rate works out to approximately Rs.1,66,667/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court, however, determined the market value at Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare, which is higher than the rate indicated by the said sale instance after the aforesaid deduction. The material available on record, therefore, does not furnish any basis for granting further enhancement over and above the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare awarded by the learned Reference Court. 10. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out for further enhancement of compensation or for granting separate compensation for the well in the present proceedings. The impugned Judgment and Award does not warrant interference. 11. The First Appeal is dismissed. Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane