SABHAJI S/O. KRISHANA MANALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AUG:41108
                                                                      904-FA-1666-2009.doc


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1666 OF 2009
                                    Sabhaji S/o. Krishana Manale
                                               VERSUS
                                  The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
                                               WITH
                                CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9323 OF 2026
                                          IN FA/1666/2009
          Sambhaji Krishana Manale Died Through Lrs Udhav Died Thr Lrs Suman And
                                            Ors.
                                          VERSUS
             The State Of Maharashtra , Through Collector, Osmanabad And Ors.
                                                   ...
          Mr. V. V. Ingale fpr the Appellant.
          Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for State.
                                                   ...

                                            CORAM :      SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                            DATE :       28 AUGUST 2026
          P. C.:

          1.        As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1995, the Appeal is heard

          finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

          2.        By this Appeal, the Appellant-original claimant is aggrieved by the

          judgment and award dated 15th April 2009 passed by the learned Reference

          Court in LAR No.136/2007, whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the

          compensation, but has not granted the compensation as claimed by the

          claimant.

          3.        The land of the claimants admeasuring 1 hectare 55R from Gat

          Nos.60/3 and 60 was acquired for the purpose of resettlement of earthquake

          affected persons. The notification under Section 4 came to be issued on 10 th

          Shubham                                                                Page 1 of 4
                                                            904-FA-1666-2009.doc


January 1994 and 31st August 1995. The awards under Section 11 were

passed on 31st May 1994 and 24th May 1996 respectively. The LAO awarded

compensation @Rs.240/- and Rs.350/- per R. The claimants sought higher

compensation. The learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.550/-

per R by relying upon award passed in LAR No.648/2000 which was placed

on record at Exh.55.

4.        Mr. Ingale, learned counsel for the claimants submits that in peculiar

facts of the present case, there are two notifications under Section 4 dated

10th January 1994 and 24th May 1996, accordingly two awards under Section

11 were passed dated 29th March 1994 and 24th May 1996 in respect of Gat

Nos.60/3 and 60 respectively. The claimants had filed present LAR

No.136/2007 against the award passed under Section 11 dated 29 th March

1994 in respect of Gat No.60/3. He submits that the claimants had relied

upon sale instances at Exh.43, 44, 59 and 60 from villages Mangrul, Killari,

Nimbala Daud (same village) and Nandurga respectively. He submits that

despite there being sale instance from the same village as well as adjacent

villages, the learned Reference Court relied only upon previous award passed

in LAR No.648/2000 and determined the compensation. Therefore, he prays

to grant compensation at the rate available in those sale instances.

5.        Per contra, learned AGP heavily relied upon the award passed under

Section 11 dated 29th March 1996, in respect of Gat No.60/3 by contending

that the same was a consent award. To substantiate his contention, he invited


Shubham                                                                Page 2 of 4
                                                            904-FA-1666-2009.doc


my attention to the LAO award dated 29th March 1996 and submitted that the

claimants had played fraud on the Court by suppressing the fact that the said

award was a consent award. Despite the said award being a consent award,

reference against the same was filed which is impermissible under the law. To

further fortify his contention, he invited my attention to the copy of CC at

Exh.33 which reveals that the claimants had received the amount of

compensation.

6.        He further submits that the application for referring the matter to the

learned Reference Court was filed by the claimants before the LAO by

erroneously contending that lesser area was shown in the award of LAO

which is nothing but an excuse to substantiate their claim for enhancement.

Learned AGP further submits that the claim Petition nowhere avers that there

were two awards passed by the LAO in respect of which the claim Petition

was filed. Despite the award being passed through consent, the claimants

have filed the reference. He fairly submits that the said aspect has not been

brought before the learned Reference Court by the Respondents even and no

Appeal has been filed by the State/acquiring body. He eventually submits that

such suppression by the claimants warrants dismissal of the present Appeal

by this Court with heavy costs.

7.        In turn, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claim

Petition was filed in respect of both the Gat numbers i.e. Gat Nos.60/3 and

60 which can be seen in the impugned award also. He further submits that an


Shubham                                                                Page 3 of 4
                                                               904-FA-1666-2009.doc


amendment application was filed by the claimants for incorporating the claim

for enhancement in respect of Gat No.60 and therefore, the impugned award

mentions both the Gat numbers.

8.        Having considered the rival submissions of both the counsel and upon

verification of the record it is revealed that the award at Exh.24 dated 29 th

March 1994 in respect of Gat No.60/3 is a consent award, which cannot be

challenged by filing reference. I have also gone through reference Petition

filed against that award. It nowhere mentions that the same has been filed

challenging the acquisition of both the Gat numbers i.e. Gat No.60/3 and 60.

I have personally verified the record and proceeding to reveal whether any

amendment application as stated by the learned counsel for the claimants has

been filed or not. No such amendment application has been filed for

incorporating the claim for enhancement in respect of Gat No.60. Thus, the

only award that has been challenged by the claimants is in respect of Gat

No.60 which is a consent award. Said fact has not been noticed by the

learned Reference Court. Law does not permit challenging a consent award.

Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the present Appeal, which is founded

upon a consent award.

9.        Hence, the Appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order

as to costs.

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



                                          [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham                                                                   Page 4 of 4