FA 741/15 & Ors. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 334 FIRST APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2015 WITH X-OBJECTION ST. NO. 24448 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR VERSUS SHAIKH HAMMID KHADARSABHA ….. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2015 WITH X-OBJECTION ST. NO. 24443 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR VERSUS NAGNATH LAXMAN CHAME ….. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 OF 2015 WITH X-OBJECTION ST. NO. 24447 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR VERSUS SATISH SAMBHAJIRAO JADHAV ….. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2015 THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR VERSUS MOHAMMAD JAKIRA ALI ….. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2015 2026:BHC-AUG:47009 FA 741/15 & Ors. 2 WITH X-OBJECTION ST. NO. 25295 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR VERSUS MUBARAQMIYA VAHEYDMIYA DESHMUKH ….. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 745 OF 2015 WITH X-OBJECTION ST. NO. 22440 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR VERSUS NIVRUTTI SUDAMA KAMBLE ... AGP for Respondents/State in all matters : Mr. S.S. Dande Advocate for respondents/Claimants in all matters: Mr. H.B. Nandagavale … 341 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3362 OF 2016 WITH X-OBJECTION ST. NO. 24526 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR LATUR AND ANR VERSUS AVINASH UDHAV HASULE, MINOR THR. MOTHER LATABAI UDHAV HASULE ... AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. A.M. Phule Advocate for respondents/Claimants : Mr. H.B. Nandagavale ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : September 30, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. X-objection St. Nos. 24448, 24443, 2447, 25295, 22440 of 2016 are not on board. Taken on board. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1998, heard FA 741/15 & Ors. 3 finally with the consent of learned AGP for appellants/State and Mr. H.B. Nandagavale, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants in X- objections. 3. By these appeals, the appellants/State assails the judgments and awards dated 3.5.2010 and 24.8.2010 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur in LAR Nos. 121, 120, 117, 339, 123, 116 and 336 of 2004, whereby the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation in favour of the original claimants at the rate of Rs.1,88,000/- per H. The claimants also have filed cross objections, by contending that the reference court has applied the deductions at higher side and determined the rate. 4. The lands of the claimants situated at village Sheldara and village Umerga Retu, Tal. Jalkot, District Latur were acquired for the purpose of construction of storage tank at Umerga Retu and Sheldara. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published 24.11.1998. Prior to that possession of the lands was taken through the private negotiations on 17.5.1998. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) declared award and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per H. and 47,000/- per H. The claimants accepted the amount under protest and sought references under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation for their acquired lands. 5. Before the reference court the claimants relied upon the sale instance, dated 22.9.1997, by which 50 R. land from Gat No. 13 situated at Umerga Retu, Taluka Ahmedpur (at present Jalkot) was sold for consideration of Rs. 1,12,000/- i.e. Rs.2,24,000/- per H. The claimants also relied upon the sale instance dated 24.12.1997 by which 20 R. land from FA 741/15 & Ors. 4 Gat No. 16 situated village Umerga Retu, Taluka Ahmedpur (at present Jalkot) was sold for Rs.63,000/- i.e. Rs. 3,15,000/- per H. Those sale instances are at Exhs. 13 and 14. Both the sale instances were prior to section 4 notification and the learned reference court by relying upon those sale instances determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1,88,000/- per H. 6. Mr. H.B. Nandagavale, the learned counsel for the original claimants submits that the SLAO has granted very meager compensation at the rate of Rs.470/- per R., therefore, the claimants relied upon the sale instances, Exhs. 13 and 14. The sale instance, Exh. 13 is dated 22.9.1997, by which 50 R. land from Gat No. 13 situated at Umerga Retu, Taluka Ahmedpur (at present Jalkot) was sold for consideration of Rs. 1,12,000/- i.e. Rs.2,24,000/- per H. The sale instance, Exh. 14 is dated 24.12.1997, by which 20 R. land from Gat No. 16 situated village Umerga Retu, Taluka Ahmedpur (at present Jalkot) was sold for Rs.63,000/- i.e. Rs. 3,15,000/- per H. Both the sale instances were from the same village. The learned reference court has relied upon both the sale instances. As regards sale instance, Exh. 13 is concerned, the learned reference court has applied 1/4th deductions and as regards sale instance, Exh. 14 is concerned, the learned reference court has applied 1/3rd deduction and also deducted 15% more amount as towards one side of the land involved in sale instance, Exh. 14, there was Nala and after deducting the above amount determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1,88,000/- per H. Therefore, he submits that once the reference court has observed that both the sale instances are comparable sale instances, the reference court ought to have granted compensation as claimed by the claimants. FA 741/15 & Ors. 5 7. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande and Mr. A.M. Phule, learned AGP for the State vehemently submits that the learned reference court ought not to have relied upon the sale instances, Exhs. 13 and 14, as those were in respect of small piece of lands and therefore, the learned reference court ought not to have considered those sale instances as comparable sale instances, though they are from the same village. 8. They further submit that as regards interest and other statutory benefits are concerned, the reference court has granted the same from the date of notification 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. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment and award of the reference court. As per sale instance, Exh. 13, dated 22.9.1997, 50 R. land from Gat No. 13 situated at Umerga Retu, Taluka Ahmedpur (at present Jalkot) was sold for consideration of Rs. 1,12,000/- i.e. Rs.2,24,000/- per H. and as per sale instance, Exh. 14 dated 24.12.1997, 20 R. land from Gat No. 16 situated village Umerga Retu, Taluka Ahmedpur (at present Jalkot) was sold for Rs.63,000/- i.e. Rs. 3,15,000/- per H. Both the sale instances were prior to section 4 notification. The learned reference court has relied upon both the sale instances. As regards sale instance, Exh. 13 is concerned, the learned reference court has applied 1/4th deductions and as regards sale instance, Exh. 14 is concerned, the learned reference court has applied 1/3rd deduction and also deducted 15% more amount as towards one side of the land involved in sale instance, Exh. 14, there was Nala and after deducting FA 741/15 & Ors. 6 the above amount, determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1,88,000/- per H. There is no dispute about the fact that both the sale instances were from the same village and therefore, the reference court has considered plus and minus factors while determining the market value of the acquired lands. As regards sale instance, Exh. 13 is concerned, 50 R. land was sold for Rs.1,12,000/- and as per the said sale instance the rate comes to Rs.2,24,000/- per H. As per sale instance, Exh. 14, 20 R. land was sold for Rs.63,000/- and as per the said sale instance the rate comes to Rs.3,15,000/- per H. There was Nala towards one side of the land involved in sale instance, Exh. 14 and therefore, to make the said sale instance comparable, 20% deductions would be proper deductions and after applying 20% deductions, the rate comes to Rs.2,52,000/- per H. Therefore, by making round off the amount, I hold that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per H. Hence, I pass the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeals filed by the State and the cross objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed. (II) The claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per H. for their acquired lands. (III) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits including interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). (IV) The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee, if any, on the enhanced FA 741/15 & Ors. 7 amount. (V) If there is delay in filing the cross objections, the claimants are not entitled to receive interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. (V) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified accordingly. (VI) Rest of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. (VII) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/