242-FA-1614-2011.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 242 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2011 The State Of Mah And Anr VERSUS Manohar Manikrao Biradar And Anr 244 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1616 OF 2011 The State Of Maharashtra And Anr VERSUS Kashinath Annarao Patil 245 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1617 OF 2011 The State Of Mah And Anr VERSUS Malshetti Sharnappa Zirikunthe 246 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1618 OF 2011 The State Of Mah And Anr VERSUS Madhav Laxman Sagar 247 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1620 OF 2011 The State Of Mah And Anr VERSUS Dnyaneshwar Shivputra Biradar …… Mr. S.N. Morampalle, Mr. D.R. Korde, Mr. S.S. Dande, Mr. A.M. Phule, AGPs for Appellant-State in respective FAs Mr. H.B. Nandagavale, Advocate h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Respondents-Claimants in all FAs …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 2026:BHC-AUG:46150 242-FA-1614-2011.odt 2 1. Heard the learned AGPs appearing for the appellant-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants in respective appeals. 2. The present appeals are directed against the common impugned Judgment and Award dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, Camp at Udgir, in Land Acquisition References No.688 of 2006, 685 of 2006, 686 of 2006, 690 of 2006 and 692 of 2006, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent-claimant together with the statutory benefits. 3. The lands belonging to the respective respondents-claimants, situated at village Bolegaon, Taluka Deoni, District Latur, came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a Percolation Tank No.4 at village Bolegaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 17.03.2006. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.02.2008 determining the market value at the rate of Rs.673/- and 795/- per R for Group II & II lands respectively. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded, the claimant accepted the same under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 242-FA-1614-2011.odt 3 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 22.02.2008, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.6000/- per R for bagayat lands, Rs.4500/- per R for seasonally irrigated lands and Rs.3000/- per R for dry lands, together with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned AGPs appearing for the appellant-State in the respective appeals submit that the SLAO has granted the reasonable compensation considering all aspects, but the learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 20 from the adjacent village Anandwadi and enhanced the compensation. Therefore, they submit that the learned Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation without there being cogent and reliable evidence on record. It is submitted that the sale instance relied upon by the claimant was not a comparable transaction and the learned Reference Court has awarded excessive compensation without any legal basis. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon a genuine and comparable sale instance below Exhibit-20, from village Anandwadi which is adjacent to the acquired land. 242-FA-1614-2011.odt 4 He further submitted that the Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned Judgment and Award. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the material available on record. 8. The record reveals that the claimant relied upon the certified copy of the registered sale deed at Exhibit 20. Under the said sale transaction dated 08.03.2002, land admeasuring 81 R, forming part of Survey No.32/2 and situated at Village Anandwadi, Taluka Deoni, District Latur, was sold for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, at the rate of approximately Rs.3,703/- per R. The said sale transaction was executed nearly four years prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 17.03.2006. It has also come on record that the land covered by the sale instance at Exhibit 20 is situated at a distance of about seven to eight intervening land parcels from the acquired land. In view of the proximity of the lands and the fact that the sale transaction preceded the Section 4 notification, the learned Reference Court was justified in relying upon the said sale instance for determining the market value of the acquired land. 9. 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 242-FA-1614-2011.odt 5 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. 10. The Firsts Appeal are dismissed. 11. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane