945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 945 FIRST APPEAL NO. 689 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Vasant Gopal Bhoite Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Ganpat Ramkrishna Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 688 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) 1 of 9 2026:BHC-AUG:3061 (( 2 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ VERSUS Sakharam Jivan Bhoi, Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Purshottam Kadu Chaudhari Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, for himself and S.P.A. of Bhagwan Kadu Chaudhari, Occu: Agri., R/o. Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Shriram Kadu Chaudhari Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) 2 of 9 (( 3 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Smt. Dropadabai Kadu Chaudhari, Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Ramkrishna Mahipat, Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 3 of 9 (( 4 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Shantabai Kisan, Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Bhausaheb Panditrao Bhoite, Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, (MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS Nathu Panditrao Bhoite Age: major, Occu: Agri. R/o Kalamsara, Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) 4 of 9 (( 5 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ … Mr. D. J. Patil, AGP for Appellants/State in all appeals Mr. S. V. Dixit h/for Mr. V. J. Dixit, Advocate for Respondents in all appeals …. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 17.01.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. These Appeals have been preferred by the State Government against the impugned judgments and awards passed in the Land Acquisition References, as given in the chart below. Sr. No First Appeal Nos. L.A.R. Nos. Name of parties Land acquired S.L.A.O. Rate per Hectare Reference Court rate per Hectare 1 FA/687/2003 17/2002 State of Mah. Vs. Ganpat 60 R 47,000/- 3,70,000/- 2 FA/688/2003 12/2002 State of Mah Vs. Sakharam Bhoi 2 H 15 R 59,000/- 3,70,000/- 3 FA/689/2003 10/2002 State of Mah. Vasant Bohite 1 H 62 R 50,000/- 3,70,000/- 4 FA/699/2003 16/2002 State Of Mah. Vs. Nathi Bhoite 50 R 60,000/- 3,70,000/- 5 FA/690/2003 8/2002 State of Mah. Vs. Ramkisan Mahipat 10 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/- 6 FA/694/2003 5/2002 State of Mah. Vs. Shantabai 3 H 19 R 50,000/- 3,70,000/- 5 of 9 (( 6 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ 7 FA/695/2003 14/2002 State of Mah. Vs. Bhausaheb Bhoite 1 H 05 R 50,000/- 3,70,000/- 8 FA/683/2003 04/2002 State of Mah VS. Purshottam Chaudhari 14 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/- 9 FA/684/2003 18/2002 State of Mah. Vs. Sriram Chaudhari 11 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/- 10 FA/698/2003 13/2002 State of Mah. Vs. Dropatibai Chaudhari 10 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/- 2. The learned AGP for the appellants-State pointed out the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals, and the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court. He submitted that the agricultural lands of the claimants were acquired by the State Government for the Project of Minor Irrigation Tank at Kalamsara. He further submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation as shown in the above chart. However, the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded compensation @ Rs.3,70,000/- per hectare. He submitted that the learned Reference Court awarded an excessive amount of compensation without properly considering the evidence on record. 6 of 9 (( 7 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ 3. He further submitted that the report submitted by the Horticulture Department was wrongly appreciated and that the nature of the land, including potkharab land, was not considered by the learned Reference Court. Even though the 7/12 extracts were not produced on record, a huge amount of compensation was awarded. He prayed to allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgments and awards. 4. The learned advocate for the respondents-claimants strongly objected the appeals and submitted that the claimants had proved their case for enhancement of compensation. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court considered the entire evidence on record and awarded a reasonable amount of compensation as per the market value of the acquired land as well as mango trees, jujube trees, and tamarind trees etc. He therefore submitted that unless any perversity is shown, the impugned judgments and awards cannot be set aside. He prayed to dismiss the appeals. 5. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals, and the reasons 7 of 9 (( 8 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ and findings of the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court considered the sale exemplar and held that it was genuine, as it was executed prior to the acquisition of land. The sale exemplar pertained to land admeasuring 81 Are and was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The lands of the claimants were irrigated lands. The learned Reference Court considered the quality of the land and accordingly awarded a reasonable amount of compensation @ Rs.3,70,000/- per hectare. 6. As far as the trees are concerned, in paragraph No.15 of the impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court considered the report of the experts from the Horticulture Department, who visited the field and found four jujube trees in block No.47, two mango trees in block No.46/2, five mango trees in Block No.37, nine jujube trees in Block No.47, two tamarind tree, one mango tree and two jujube trees in Block No.52. The learned Reference Court considered the fruit bearing capacity of the said trees along with their seasonable income, accepted the expert report and awarded reasonable amount of compensation i.e., Rs.25,000/- for per mango trees, Rs.8,000/- for per jujube trees, Rs. 20,000/- for per tamarind trees. The compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is found to be 8 of 9 (( 9 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++ reasonable as per the market rate. The evidence of the witnesses has been properly appreciated and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments and awards. Therefore, the award deserves to be confirmed and no interference is warranted in it. Hence, the following order: ::ORDER:: i. The first appeals are dismissed. ii. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. iii. No order as to costs. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 9 of 9