TAPI IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusMUKHTYARSING SUPADU PATIL

2026:BHC-AUG:38551

                                                                              FA 1875/10
                                                   1

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 10 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1875 OF 2010
                                               WITH
                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9678 OF 2007 IN FA/1875/2010

                          THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR
                                                VERSUS
                                    MUKHTYARSING SUPADU PATIL
                                                   ...
                               AGP for State/Appellant : Mr. D.R. Korde
                         Advocate for appellant/acquiring body : Mr. A.D. Pawar
                                                   …

                                  CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                  Dated         : August 24, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.       As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1998, heard

            finally with the consent of learned counsel for the acquiring body and the

            State.

            2.       By this appeal, the State and the acquiring body assail the judgment

            and award dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior

            Division at Jalgaon in LAR No. 104/2001, whereby the reference court has

            enhanced the compensation.

            3.       The land of the claimant admeasuring 74 R. from Gat No. 166/2

            situated at village Dharagir, Tal. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon was acquired for the

            purpose of Dharagir medium project. Notification under section 4 of the

            Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28.2.1998. The Special Land Acquisition

            Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on 28.7.2000. As the SLAO has

            granted very meager compensation, being aggrieved by the same, the

            claimant filed an application before the Collector for proper determination of

            the market value of the acquired land under section 18 of the Act. Before
                                                                FA 1875/10
                                     2

the reference court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance as well as

valuer’s report. The learned reference court after considering the valuer’s

report determined the market value for 112 acquired trees and enhanced

compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per H. for 40 R. acquired land,

which was irrigated land. No compensation was paid for 34 R. land in which

trees were standing. Being aggrieved by the same the State as well as

acquiring body preferred the the present appeal.

4.    Heard Mr. Korde and Mr. Ajay Pawar, learned counsel for the State

and the acquiring body, respectively. They submit that there is difference

between the number of trees mentioned by the SLAO in his award and in

valuer’s report. Even the SLAO has determined the compensation for 112

trees which is excessive in nature and therefore, prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

5.    None appears for the respondent/claimant though served.

6.    Having heard the learned counsel for State and acquiring body, with

their assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and

impugned judgment and award of the reference court. On perusal of the

same, it is seen that the SLAO has shown more number of trees than shown

by the private valuer and by applying multiplier of 10, the reference court

has determined the compensation for trees. It is not the case of the

acquiring body that no trees were acquired, infact less number of trees were

shown as per the valuer’s report. As far as award of SLAO is concerned, the

SLAO has shown more number of trees and therefore, I find that even the

SLAO has determined the market value of the acquired land as irrigated

land and no compensation is paid for 34 R. land on which trees were shown.

Therefore, I hold that the reference court has not committed any error while
                                                                 FA 1875/10
                                       3

enhancing the compensation.

7.     Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Civil

application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                           ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/