THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIFT IRRIGATION DIVISI. OSMANABAD AND ANOTHERversusVINAYAK GIRJAPPA RAJGURA

2026:BHC-AUG:40630
                                                                           14-FA-1183-2015.odt
                                                  1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1183 OF 2015

               The Executive Engineer Lift Irrigation Divisi. Osmanabad And Another
                                              VERSUS
                                    Vinayak Girjappa Rajgura

                                             ……
          Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State
                                             …...

                                           CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                           DATE       : 29 AUGUST, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.       The earlier counsel, Ms. D.G. Ansingkar, is no longer on the panel of

          the appellant-Acquiring Body. Since the appeal is pending since 2015 and no

          other counsel has been engaged by the appellant-Acquiring Body, this Court

          requested learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande to assist the Court in the matter. He

          has graciously accepted the same and has assisted the Court.


          2.       Heard learned AGP for the appellants. None appears for the

          respondent-claimant, though duly served.


          3.         The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award

          dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior

          Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.253 of 2009,

          whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under

          Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the

          compensation to Rs.40,000/- per Acre, along with the statutory benefits.
                                                                14-FA-1183-2015.odt
                                      2


3.      The land of the respondent-claimant, admeasuring 16 Gunthas from

Gat No.18, situated at village Baramgaon, Taluka and District Osmanabad,

was acquired for the purpose of Lower Terna Project, Wadala Left Canal,

Baramgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 was published on 18.01.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

thereafter passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 08.03.1999 and

determined the market value at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per Hectare. The

claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, accepted

the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the

Act.


4.      Before the learned Reference Court, the claimant relied upon the sale

instances at Exhibits 19 and 20. The learned Reference Court, however, did

not rely upon those sale instances and instead considered the Judgment and

Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009. The said

reference also concerned land acquired from the same village, for the same

project and under the same notification. Relying upon the said

determination, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of

the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per Acre and awarded the consequential

statutory benefits. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the Acquiring

Body.
                                                              14-FA-1183-2015.odt
                                     3

5.       Learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande, submits that the learned Reference

Court was not justified in relying upon the Judgment and Award passed in

Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009. According to him, the sale

instances considered in the said reference could not have been treated as

comparable instances for determining the market value of the land involved

in the present reference. He, therefore, submits that the impugned

Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside.


6.       I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP and have gone

through the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and

Award.


7.       The record shows that the acquired land is situated at village

Baramgaon and was acquired for the Lower Terna Project, Wadala Left

Canal, Baramgaon. The Section 4 notification was published on 18.01.1996

and the Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 08.03.1999. The

learned Reference Court, while determining the market value, did not rely

upon the sale instances at Exhibits 19 and 20, but considered the Judgment

and Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009.


8.       It is true that the determination made in another land acquisition

reference cannot, by itself, be treated as a binding precedent for

determination of market value in another reference. However, such

determination can be taken into consideration as a relevant piece of
                                                               14-FA-1183-2015.odt
                                       4

evidence or a guiding circumstance, particularly when the acquisition is

from the same village, for the same project and under the same notification.

In the present case, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the

determination in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009 on these very

considerations.


9.     The rate determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was

Rs.18,000/- per Hectare, whereas the learned Reference Court has

determined the market value at Rs.40,000/- per Acre. The latter rate works

out to approximately Rs.98,842/- per Hectare. The enhancement, therefore,

is substantial; however, the question before this Court is whether the

determination by the learned Reference Court is shown to be unsustainable

on the material available on record.


11.    The learned AGP has not been able to point out any material

demonstrating that the determination relied upon by the learned Reference

Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 2009 was wholly irrelevant

or that the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre determined in the present case is

otherwise unsupported by the material on record. The mere fact that the

learned Reference Court did not accept the sale instances at Exhibits 19 and

20 cannot, in the facts of the present case, furnish sufficient ground to

interfere with its determination.
                                                                  14-FA-1183-2015.odt
                                            5

12.        In the circumstances, I find no error in the approach adopted by the

learned Reference Court warranting interference in the present appeal. The

impugned Judgment and Award, therefore, calls for no interference. Hence,

the appeal deserved to be dismissed.


13.        The First Appeal is dismissed.




                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE
S P Rane