FA 3097/09 & Ors. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3097 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS NAMDEO SUKHDEO BHOSALE ... WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 334 OF 2026 IN FA/3097/2009 … 909 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3098 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS NAVNATH KUNDLIKRAO WANVE ... WITH X-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO. 7013 OF 2010 IN FA/3098/2009 … 910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3099 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS SANJEEWAN TUKARAM BHOSALE ... WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 333 OF 2026 IN FA/3099/2009 … 911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3104 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS RAKHMABAI NAGARJORE ... WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 336 OF 2026 IN FA/3104/2009 … 912 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3105 OF 2009 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS NAMDEO DASHIRATH SHINDE ... WITH X-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO. 6951 OF 2010 IN FA/3105/2009 2026:BHC-AUG:46519 FA 3097/09 & Ors. 2 … 309 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3095 OF 2009 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS DHANRAJ RAMKRISHNA SHINDE ... AGP for Appellants/State : Mr. D.R. Korde, Mr. A.M. Phule, Mr. A.D. Wange, Mr. B.A.Shinde, Mr. S.N. Morampalle in respective matters Advocate for acquiring body : Mr. T.B. Bhosle in all matters Advocate for Respondents/claimants/x-objectors : Mr. T.G. Gaikwad in all matters ... WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 329 OF 2026 IN FA/3095/2009 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : September 30, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceedings are of the year 1989, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By these appeals, the appellants/State assails the judgment and award dated 31.7.2001 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in LAR Nos. 26, 78, 27, 21, 30 and 28 of 1994 whereby the reference court has enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 600/- per R. In the above appeals, the original claimants have also filed cross objections by contending that the reference court has granted very meager compensation. 3. The details of the acquired lands are as under :- Sr. No. FA No. LAR No. Area of Survey No./Gut No. Area acquired H. R. 1. 3097/2009 26/1994 37-80 51-79 51-79 00-51 R. 00-33 R. 00-56 R. FA 3097/09 & Ors. 3 well 2. 3098/2009 78/1994 54/04-115 05/06 01-06 00-02 3. 3099/2009 27/1994 54/02-115 48/114 04-28 00-27 ½ Well Trees 4. 3104/2009 21/1994 55/01-123 01-00 5. 3105/2009 30/1994 53-119 08-65 fruit trees well & cattle shed 6. 3095/2009 28/1994 19/01-40 52-120 00-54 00-13 ½ fruits The above lands were acquired for Minor Irrigation Tank of villages Nagpimpri and Gopalpur, Taluka Parli, District Beed. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 6.7.1989. Possession was taken over on 10.4.1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.80/-, Rs.90/- and Rs.100/-, per R. respectively. The claimants after receipt of amount under protest, sought references under section 18 of the Act contending that the SLAO has granted very meager compensation. 4. Before the reference court, the claimants relied upon sale instance, Exh. 29, dated 18.3.1989 and as per that sale instance 54 R. land situated at village Nagpimpri was sold for Rs.50,000/-. But the learned reference court without considering that sale instance granted rate of Rs.600/- per R. Therefore, original claimants have filed cross objections and the State assails the same as according to them, the learned reference court has granted exorbitant compensation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their FA 3097/09 & Ors. 4 able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. There is no dispute about the fact that the above lands of the claimants were acquired for Minor Irrigation Tank at village Nagpimpri and Gopalpur. Section 4 notification came to be published on 6.7.1989 and possession was taken onver 10.4.1986. The SLAO has collected the sale instances, but not granted compensation as per the prevailing market rate in that area and therefore, the claimants relied upon the sale instance, Exh. 29, which was dated 18.3.1989. As per that sale instance, 54 R. land was sold for Rs.50,000/- and as per that sale instance, rate comes to Rs.925/- per R. Considering all above, this court is of the view that once the sale instance from that area is available, the reference court by relying upon that sale instance ought to have granted rate of Rs.1000/- per R. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.1000/- per R. for their acquired lands. 6. However, the reference court has granted interest from the date of possession, which is contrary to the law laid down by the full bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. Hence, I pass the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeals of the acquiring body and the cross objections of the claimants are partly allowed. (II) The claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per R. for their acquired lands. (III) The claimants are entitled to receive interest and other statutory benefits in view of the law laid down by the full bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). FA 3097/09 & Ors. 5 (IV) The claimants are also not entitled to receive interest and other statutory benefits for the delay period, if any, caused in filing the cross objection. (V) The claimants shall deposit the deficit court fee, if any, on enhanced amount. (VI) The award of the reference court is modified accordingly. (VII) It is made clear that if the claimants have not received the rental compensation, the claimants are at liberty to file appropriate application before the concerned Collector and the Collector is directed to decide the said application and pay compensation accordingly as per the Government policy available for paying rental compensation within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. (VIII) Rest of the award of the reference court stand unaltered. (IX) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/