3-FA-2881-2009.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2881 OF 2009 Damodhar Motiram Mali (Died) Through L.Rs. Hiralal And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2882 OF 2009 Dinkar Adhar Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2886 OF 2009 A. Shakur A. Rahman Deshmukh VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2885 OF 2009 Mohamad Ahmad Karim Deshmukh VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2887 OF 2009 Pramila Suresh Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another …… MR. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Appellants-Claimants Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondents No.1 and2 …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:46486 3-FA-2881-2009.odt 2 PER COURT : 1. The present matters were kept on 16.09.2026, and the order was dictated in the open Court on the same day. However, at the request of the learned AGP, the matters are kept today. The order dictated on 16.09.2026 is as under: 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. These appeals, filed by the claimants, take exception to the Judgments and Awards dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.1485 of 1998, 1486 of 1998, 1492 of 1998/ 1492 of 1998 and 1490 of 1998, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and enhanced the compensation along with statutory benefits. However, as the compensation claimed by the claimants was not granted in its entirety, the present appeals are preferred seeking further enhancement. 4. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village Paldhi, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon, were acquired by the State for the purpose of National Highway No.6. The particulars of the acquired lands are as under: 3-FA-2881-2009.odt 3 Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No. Survey/Gat No. Area Acquired 1. 2881 of 2009 1485 of 1998 119 50 R 2. 2882 of 2009 1486 of 1998 235/1/1 25 R 3. 2886 of 2009 1492 of 1998 454 38 R 4. 2885 of 2009 1493 of 1998 452 55 R 5. 2887 of 2009 1490 of 2009 235/2 63 R 5. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 16.03.1989. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLAO”) passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 05.12.1992. The SLAO determined the market value of the acquired jirayat lands at the rate of Rs.9,800/- per Hectare. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the SLAO, accepted the compensation under protest and sought references under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the references were made to the learned Reference Court. 6. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 25 pertaining to the same village and claimed that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court, upon considering the sale instances available on record, determined the market value at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare, the claimants having restricted their claim before the Reference Court to Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, the claimants have preferred the present appeals. 3-FA-2881-2009.odt 4 7. Learned counsel Mr. A.B. Kale, appearing for the claimants, tendered across the Bar a copy of the order passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.1506 of 1998. He submits that the land involved in the said reference as well as the lands involved in the present appeals were acquired for the same project, namely, National Highway No.6. He further submits that the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Award and the village are also the same. He submits that, in LAR No.1506 of 1998, the land from Gut No.66 was acquired and the learned Reference Court determined the market value at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare. According to him, the claimants in the present appeals are also entitled to compensation at the same rate. He further submits that the acquired lands were, in fact, bagayat lands and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Hectare. 8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Wange submits that the order passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No.1506 of 1998 cannot be relied upon for determining the market value in the present appeals. He submits that the learned Reference Court, while determining the market value of the jirayat land at Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare, without recording any cogent reason, doubled the rate to Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare on the ground that the acquired land had non-agricultural potentiality. He submits that, therefore, the said order cannot be treated as a basis for further enhancement and the claimants are required to establish their entitlement on the basis of cogent 3-FA-2881-2009.odt 5 evidence available on record. He further submits that the claimants themselves relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 44 dated 22.05.1987 and, even upon applying 10% escalation thereto, the market value would work out to approximately Rs.1,000/- per R, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare. According to him, the learned Reference Court has already granted compensation at the said rate and, therefore, no further enhancement is warranted. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and, with their able assistance, have gone through the impugned Judgments and Awards passed in the present matters, as well as the order passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No.1506 of 1998. 10. Before proceeding further, both the learned counsel were specifically asked whether the order passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No.1506 of 1998 had been challenged before this Court. Neither of the learned counsel could point out that the said order had been challenged or set aside by this Court. 11. It is not in dispute that the land involved in LAR No.1506 of 1998 and the lands involved in the present appeals were acquired for the same project, namely, National Highway No.6, pursuant to the same notification under Section 4 of the Act. The lands are situated in the same village and the Award under Section 11 of the Act is also the same. In these 3-FA-2881-2009.odt 6 circumstances, the order passed in LAR No.1506 of 1998, though not a binding precedent, can certainly be considered as a relevant and guiding circumstance for determining the market value of the lands involved in the present appeals. More particularly, the said order has not been shown to have been challenged or set aside by this Court. The principle of consistency in determination of market value of lands acquired under the same notification, for the same project and situated in the same village, also supports consideration of the said order for the purpose of determining the appropriate market value in the present appeals. 12. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the acquired lands be treated as bagayat lands, the said contention cannot be accepted. The learned Reference Court in LAR No.1506 of 1998 has considered the acquired land as jirayat land having non-agricultural potentiality and, on that basis, determined the market value at Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare. In the present matters also, the claim for further enhancement on the basis that the lands were bagayat lands cannot be accepted merely on the submission of the learned counsel, particularly when the market value is being determined with reference to the comparable acquisition covered by the same notification. Thus, the contention that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Hectare treating the lands as bagayat lands cannot be accepted. 3-FA-2881-2009.odt 7 13. The order passed in LAR No.1506 of 1998, therefore, provides a relevant basis for maintaining consistency in the determination of market value. Since the lands involved in the said reference and the present appeals were acquired under the same notification, for the same project, from the same village and under the same Award, and since the said order has not been shown to have been challenged or set aside, the market value determined therein at Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare deserves to be adopted in the present matters also. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare for the acquired jirayat lands. The claim for further enhancement on the basis that the lands were bagayat lands is rejected. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeals deserve to be partly allowed. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The First Appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The Judgments and Awards dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.1485 of 1998, 1486 of 1998, 1492 of 1998/ 1492 of 1998 and 1490 of 1998 are modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare for the acquired jirayat lands. 3-FA-2881-2009.odt 8 (iv) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (v) The claimants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari 2016 (3) 457. (vi) The amount already paid to the claimants shall be given due adjustment. (vii) The claimants shall pay deficit court fees on the enhanced compensation. (viii) The claimants shall not be entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay, if any. (ix) The rest of the Judgments and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court in the above-referred Land Acquisition References shall remain unaltered. (x) Modified Award be drawn accordingly. (xi) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane