206-FA-2800-2008.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 206 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2800 OF 2008 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Trambak Vithoba Dhangar …… Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellnt-State Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent-Claimant …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 03.04.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference No.1880 of 1998, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), and enhanced the compensation awarded to the respondent-claimant along with the statutory benefits. 3. The respondent-claimant's land admeasuring 1 Hectare 71 R out of Gat No.392, situated at Village Yengaon, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, came to be acquired for the purpose of submergence. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 02.05.1985. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of the Act on 2026:BHC-AUG:45704 206-FA-2800-2008.odt 2 20.05.1986 and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,345/-. The claimant, having accepted the amount under protest, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned Reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, enhanced the market value to Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare for bagayat land, Rs.50,000/- per Hectare for jirayat land and Rs.25,000/- per Hectare for potkharab land, together with the statutory benefits. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 5. Learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence. According to him, the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court was not a comparable transaction as it related to land situated at Village Bodwad and not at Village Yengaon. He further submitted that the acquired land was dry land and that the Reference Court erroneously treated it as bagayat land. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supported the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court was a bona fide transaction relating to land situated at Village Bodwad, which is adjacent to the acquired land at Village Yengaon, and was executed on 27.12.1982, i.e. prior to the notification 206-FA-2800-2008.odt 3 under Section 4 of the Act. He further submitted that the Reference Court, upon considering the 7/12 extract and other evidence on record, rightly treated the acquired land as bagayat land and determined the compensation after considering the nature of the land. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit-13 relating to land situated at Village Bodwad, an adjoining village, which was sold on 27.12.1982 for a consideration of Rs.37,000/-. Though the transaction does not relate to the same village, the fact that it pertains to an adjoining village would not, by itself, make the sale instance irrelevant. The transaction is prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the appellant has not pointed out any material circumstance demonstrating that the sale instance was not genuine or that the lands covered by the transaction were so dissimilar as to render it wholly incomparable. 9. As regards the nature of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court has considered the 7/12 extract and the other evidence on record and has treated the relevant land as bagayat land. The Reference Court has also separately considered the jirayat and potkharab portions and has awarded different rates for the respective categories. No material has been brought on record to show that the said finding is perverse or contrary to the documentary evidence. 206-FA-2800-2008.odt 4 10. Upon an independent consideration of the evidence on record, I find that the learned Reference Court has based its determination on the relevant material and has assigned separate rates having regard to the nature and classification of the land. The compensation determined by the learned Reference Court appears to be just, proper and reasonable. The findings recorded by the learned Reference Court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 11. The First Appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane