This order is corrected vide speaking to the minutes of order dated 31.08.2026 1 943-ca-9413-2026 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9413 OF 2026 IN FA/1952/2023 Satyabhamabi Vishnu Dhanwate (died) Thr Lrs Balraj. VERSUS The Ex. Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur And Anr. ... Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. R. C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent no.1 ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Claimant’s land bearing Gut No.469/2, admeasuring 5H 65 R situated at village Vaijapur District Aurangabad was acquired by the appellant/Acquiring Body for construction of Narangi Medium Irrigation Project. An award was prepared and compensation was granted. Feeling aggrieved by inadequacy in the compensation, the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were taken up by the claimant before the Reference Court. 2. In the reference proceedings, notices were issued to the respondents. Notice was served upon the Acquiring Body; however, the Acquiring Body failed to appear before the 2026:BHC-AUG:39774 This order is corrected vide speaking to the minutes of order dated 31.08.2026 2 943-ca-9413-2026 (1) Reference Court and failed to contest the claim on merits. The Trial Court proceeded for evidence. In the evidence, the claimant examined himself and produced on record two sale instances at Exhibit-26 and Exhibit-27. The Trial Court in paragraph nos.8 and 9 of the judgment under challenge recorded that the sale instances pertained to the same village and could legally be relied upon by the Reference Court. The Reference Court as also relied upon the Official Gazette dated 30.07.1994. Accordingly, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation determining the market value @ Rs.8842/- per R holding claimant’s land as irrigated land. 3. As against that, the Acquiring Body is before this Court. 4. The notices were issued and execution and operation of the impugned judgment and award was stayed by this Court putting a rider on Acquiring Body to deposit entire payable award amount in this Court. Accordingly, the amount came to be deposited by the Acquiring Body. 5. Earlier the claimant had filed Civil Application No.6415 of 2020 seeking withdrawal of the amount. Vide order dated 03.07.2020, this Court permitted partial withdrawal to the extent of 30% out of the deposited amount. Thereafter, This order is corrected vide speaking to the minutes of order dated 31.08.2026 3 943-ca-9413-2026 (1) another Civil Application No.12513 of 2022 was filed for further withdrawal. However, considering that this Court had already permitted withdrawal of 30% of the deposited amount, the said application was rejected. 6. Now, the present Civil Application is filed by the claimant. The requirement of financial assistance is described by the claimant at paragraph no.6 to paragraph no.10 of the Civil Application. 7. Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, learned Advocate for the applicant/claimant would submit that the applicant is the land looser and it is not a case that he is taking undue advantage of the reference proceedings. In his submission, the compensation awarded under the award cannot be termed as an unlawful gain. He therefore submits that the applicant be permitted to withdraw the balance amount. 8. The application is strongly opposed by learned Advocate Mr. R. C. Patil, appearing for the Acquiring Body. He would fairly agree with the factual aspect that the Acquiring Body has not participated the trial proceedings before the Reference Court. However, he was at pains to demonstrate that the compensation is escalated from Rs.590/- per R to more than This order is corrected vide speaking to the minutes of order dated 31.08.2026 4 943-ca-9413-2026 (1) Rs.8800/- per R. He would submit that the applicant may be entitled to adequate compensation, but not for any such gain which would impose unnecessary burden on the public exchequer. With this, Mr. Patil prays to reject the application. 9. I have heard both the learned Advocates extensively. The things are very clear. The trial has gone uncontroverted by the Acquiring Body. The Trial Court has completed the procedure. The claimant examined himself and also proved the sale instances to justify his claim for enhancement. The Reference Court has observed that the sale instances are from the same village and were not forbidden from being considered for grant of escalation. 10. The applicant is a land looser whose sole source of earning has been acquired under the compulsory acquisition. He is certainly entitled to receive compensation corresponding to the correct valuation of the acquired land. The mode for seeking enhancement in the compensation is by adducing such evidence which would satisfy the Reference Court to the effect that correct compensation deserves to be paid corresponding to the evidence. Prima facie, it appears that this exercise is properly done. This order is corrected vide speaking to the minutes of order dated 31.08.2026 5 943-ca-9413-2026 (1) 11. Merely because the compensation determined by the Reference Court is several times higher than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, cannot be the sole ground for denial of the escalation or atleast for withdrawal of the escalated amount on a condition safeguarding the interest of Acquiring Body. True that once the applicants were permitted to withdraw 30% of the deposited amount, the said withdrawal is of year 2020. It appears that the fact of failure on the part of the Acquiring Body was not brought before this Court as is strongly highlighted in this Civil Application. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to partially allow the application. Hence, the following order: ORDER a. Civil Application stands partly allowed. b. Applicant is permitted to withdraw further 45% of the total deposited amount together with accrued interest on furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. c. Civil Application stands disposed of. FIRST APPEAL NO.1952 OF 2023: . Call Record and proceedings, if not already called. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026