41-FA-678-2010.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 41 FIRST APPEAL NO. 678 OF 2010 Padmakar Ramrao Ambegaonkar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another …… Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for Appellant Mr. B.A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent No.1-State Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 …… 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.924 of 1998 (Old LAR No.501 of 1998). 3. The claimant owned land admeasuring 9 Hectares 71 R from Block No.32, situated at village Vadgaon, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. Out of the said land, 5 Hectares was acquired for the purpose of construction of Percolation Tank at village Vadgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 14.07.1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer thereafter passed an award under Section 11 of the Act and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per Acre. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant accepted the 2026:BHC-AUG:46446 41-FA-678-2010.odt 2 amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 4. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimant relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 44 dated 30.01.1991 pertaining to village Tupdi. Under the said sale deed, land admeasuring 1 Hectare 35 R was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,95,000/-. The learned Reference Court relied upon the said sale instance and, after making the requisite adjustment, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare by treating it as dry land. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so determined, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Patil for the appellant submits that, at the relevant time, no sale instance from village Vadgaon was available and, therefore, the claimant relied upon the sale instance from village Tupdi. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred in treating the acquired land as dry land. According to him, the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer itself records the existence of a well and compensation has also been awarded separately towards the well. He submits that the existence of the well indicates that the acquired land was capable of irrigation and, therefore, ought to have been treated as seasonally irrigated land. He, therefore, submits that the market value determined by the learned Reference Court for dry land deserves to be suitably enhanced by applying the multiplier applicable to seasonally irrigated land. 41-FA-678-2010.odt 3 6. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Manale for the acquiring body, as well as the learned AGP, support the impugned Judgment and Award. They submit that merely because separate compensation was awarded towards the well, the acquired land cannot be treated as irrigated land. According to them, the learned Reference Court has already considered the material on record and has rightly determined the market value by treating the land as dry land. They, therefore, submit that no further enhancement is warranted. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance, I have perused the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. There is no dispute that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of the Percolation Tank at village Vadgaon and that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 14.07.1992. Since no sale instance from the acquired village was available, the claimant relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 44 pertaining to village Tupdi. The learned Reference Court relied upon the said sale instance and determined the market value at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare by treating the acquired land as dry land. 9. The record, however, shows that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has recorded the existence of a well on the acquired land and has also awarded separate compensation towards the said well. Though the 41-FA-678-2010.odt 4 compensation awarded towards the well was very meager, its existence on the acquired land is not in dispute. The existence of the well is a relevant circumstance for determining the nature and utility of the acquired land. In view of this material, the acquired land could not have been treated merely as dry land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the acquired land is, therefore, required to be treated as seasonally irrigated land. 10. The learned Reference Court has determined the market value of the dry land at Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare. Applying the multiplier of 1.5 for treating the land as seasonally irrigated, the rate comes to Rs. 1,87,500/- per Hectare. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Judgment and Award requires modification to the aforesaid extent. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The First Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 03.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.924 of 1998 (Old LAR No.501 of 1998) is modified to the extent. (iii) The market value of the acquired land admeasuring 5 Hectares from Block No.32 is determined at the rate of Rs.1,87,500/- per Hectare, treating the said land as seasonally irrigated. 41-FA-678-2010.odt 5 (iv) The claimant shall be entitled to consequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (v) The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. (vi) The claimant shall pay the deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. (vii) The claimant shall not be entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period, if any, in accordance with law. (viii) Rest of the the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court remains unaltered. (ix) Modified award be drawn accordingly. (x) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane