THE STATE OF MAH.THRO.COLLECTOR,OSMANABAD.versusNAMDEORAO TATYABA MANE.

2026:BHC-AUG:45708
                                                                       201-FA-1059-2007.odt
                                                  1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                             201 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2007
                          The State Of Mah.thro.collector,osmanabad.
                                          VERSUS
                                  Namdeorao Tatyaba Mane.
                                              …….
          Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellant
          Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate fr Respondent
                                              …...

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE        : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard the learned AGP Mr. Phule, appearing for the appellant-State

          and the learned counsel Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, appearing for the respondent-

          claimant.


          2.     The present appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Award

          dated 30.12.1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

          Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.156 of 1993, whereby the

          learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference filed by the claimant

          and enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent-claimant

          together with the statutory benefits.


          3.     The land belonging to the respondent-claimant, situated at Shingoli,

          Taluka Kallam, District Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the purpose of

          construction of the Medium Project at Shingoli. The notification under

          Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 09.03.1987.

          The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of
                                                               201-FA-1059-2007.odt
                                     2

the Act on 31.07.1989, determining the market value of the acquired land at

the rate of Rs.190/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so

determined, the claimant accepted the same under protest and sought a

reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.


4.     Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by

the parties, the learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and

Award dated 30.12.1993, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to

Rs.975/- per R, together with the statutory benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the

appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.


5.     The learned AGP for the appellant-State submits that the learned

Reference Court has awarded excessive compensation. He submits that,

though a sale instance pertaining to land situated in the same village as the

acquired land is available on record, the learned Reference Court has relied

upon the sale instance at Exhibit 15 pertaining to village Yermala and has

consequently determined the market value at the excessive rate of Rs.975/-

per R. He further submits that the evidence on record does not justify such

enhancement and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award warrants

interference.

6.      Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supports

the impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that the learned Reference

Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence,

particularly the sale instance at Exhibit 15, which is proximate in point of
                                                                  201-FA-1059-2007.odt
                                       3

time to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He submits that the

appellant has not brought on record any better or comparable sale instance

to displace the determination made by the learned Reference Court.


7.     I have considered the rival submissions and with the assistance of the

learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the Record and

Proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment and Award.


8.     The learned Reference Court has, inter alia, relied upon the sale

instance at Exhibit 15 dated 25.11.1986, pertaining to land situated at

village Yermala, whereby 1 Acre of land was sold for a consideration of

Rs.30,000/-. The said transaction had taken place about three and a half

months prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the

Act. Thus, the sale instance is reasonably proximate in point of time to the

relevant date. The learned Reference Court has considered the said sale

instance along with the oral evidence adduced by the claimant and, upon

appreciation of the material on record, determined the market value at

Rs.975/- per R.


9.     It is true that the sale instance at Exhibit 15 relates to village Yermala

and not to the acquired land situated at Shingoli. However, the mere

circumstance that the sale instance is from a different village would not, by

itself, render the same irrelevant, particularly when the transaction is

proximate in point of time and has been considered by the learned

Reference Court along with the other evidence on record. The sale
                                                                201-FA-1059-2007.odt
                                      4

consideration of Rs.30,000/- for 1 Acre works out to Rs.750/- per R. The

learned Reference Court has, after considering the evidence led by the

claimant, determined the market value at Rs.975/- per R. The appellant-

State has not pointed out any material error in the appreciation of the

evidence nor has it brought on record any better or more comparable sale

instance which would justify interference with the rate determined by the

learned Reference Court.


10.    It is well settled that the market value has to be determined on the

basis of the best available comparable sale instance. The sale deed at

Exhibit-16 satisfies the test of comparability, inasmuch as it relates to land

situated in the same village and is reasonably proximate in point of time to

the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The deductions made by the

learned Reference Court are also reasonable. The appellant-State has not

placed on record any better or more comparable sale instance so as to

demonstrate that the compensation determined by the Reference Court is

excessive.


11.    Upon an independent re-appreciation of the evidence, I do not find

that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court suffer from any

perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in the

exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The compensation determined by the

learned Reference Court appears to be just, fair and reasonable.

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
                                                                    201-FA-1059-2007.odt
                                            5


12.        The First Appeal is dismissed.


13.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE




S P Rane