FA 3201/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 314 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3201 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS VERSUS SHIVKUMAR MARUTI SURYAWANSHI ... AGP for appellants/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde Advocate for Respondent : Mr. R.V. Gunale h/f. Mr. V.D. Gunale ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : September 30, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1995, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellants/State assails the judgment and award dated 22.1.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, Camp at Udgir in LAR No. 93/2003, whereby the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per R. 3. The land of the claimant admeasuring 95 R. situated on the way of Sayedpur to Udgir road was acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation tank at village Sayedpur. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 25.5.1995. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) published award on 30.11.1999 and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.215/- per R. The claimant received the amount under protest and filed reference under section 18 of the Act as SLAO has granted very meager and inadequate compensation. 4. Before the reference court the claimant relied upon the sale instance, FA 3201/2009 2 Exh. 13, dated 21.3.1994, by which 81 R. land was sold for consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- i.e. Rs.1975/- per R. The said sale instance was prior to section 4 notification. Therefore, on the basis of above sale instance, Exh. 15, the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation. Considering all above, it is seen that the compensation was awarded by the reference court on the basis of sale instance, Exh. 13, which is from the same village, for the same project and which was prior to section 4 notification. Therefore, this court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the reference court is not exorbitant or excessive and the same is just, proper and reasonable. No case is made out for interference. Hence, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/