THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORSversusPANDURANG BHANUDAS RANDIVE DIED HIS LRS MINAKSHRI PANDURANG RANDIVE

2026:BHC-AUG:43301
                                                                        13-FA-2744-2017.odt
                                                 1


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2744 OF 2017

                             The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                           VERSUS
                             Pandurang Bhanudas Randive (Died)
                        Through His L.Rs. Minakshri Pandurang Randive

                                             ……
          Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellant-State
          Ms. Prerna Pawar, Advocate h/f Mr. D.B. Pawar, Advocate for Respondents-
          Claimants
                                             ……

                                         CORAM       : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE        : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule for the appellant-State and

          learned counsel Ms. Prerna Pawar, holding for learned counsel Mr. D.B.

          Pawar, for the respondent-claimants.


          2.     This appeal takes exception to the common Judgment and Award

          dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

          Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference No.431 of 2002, whereby the learned

          Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land

          Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and enhanced the compensation

          payable to the claimant at the rate of Rs.58,950/- per Acre, together with

          the statutory benefits.
                                                                 13-FA-2744-2017.odt
                                       2

3.     The land belonging to the respondent-claimant, admeasuring 1

Hectare 36 R out of Gut No.41/B, situated at village Balpirwadi (Sarola),

Taluka and District Osmanabad, was acquired for the purpose of

construction of Percolation Tank No.2 at Balpirwadi (Sarola). The

notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 07.04.1994.

Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award under

Section 11 of the Act on 15.05.1997 and determined the market value at the

rate of Rs.25,000/- 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 for determination of the

proper market value of the acquired land.


4.     Before the learned Reference Court, reliance was placed upon the

sale instance at Exhibit 24 dated 21.11.1994, under which 78 R land was

sold for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. On the basis of the material placed

on record, the learned Reference Court applied a deduction of 15% and

determined the market value at Rs.39,300/- per Acre for Jirayat land. The

learned Reference Court thereafter added 50% to the said amount,

considering the acquired land to be seasonally irrigated, and consequently

determined the market value at Rs.58,950/- per Acre, together with the

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


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

Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the market value to the
                                                                13-FA-2744-2017.odt
                                      3

extent awarded. According to him, having regard to the sale instance at

Exhibit 24 and the nature and extent of the acquired land, a higher

deduction ought to have been applied. He submits that the enhancement

granted by the learned Reference Court is excessive and imposes an

unwarranted burden on the public exchequer. He, therefore, submits that

the impugned Judgment and Award warrants interference.


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

supports the impugned Judgment and Award. She submits that the sale

instance at Exhibit 24 is a genuine and duly proved transaction. Since the

sale instance pertains to another village, the learned Reference Court has

already made an appropriate deduction of 15% while determining the

market value. She further submits that, after determining the rate for Jirayat

land, the learned Reference Court has added 50% amount on account of the

acquired land being seasonally irrigated. According to her, the compensation

awarded by the learned Reference Court is based on the evidence on record

and calls for no interference.


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

learned counsel appearing for the parties, have perused the record and

proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment and Award.


8.     The record reveals that the claimant relied upon the sale instance at

Exhibit 24. The said transaction is dated 21.11.1994 and concerns 78 R land
                                                                 13-FA-2744-2017.odt
                                      4

sold for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. The learned Reference Court, while

assessing the market value on the basis of the said sale instance, has applied

a deduction of 15% and thereafter determined the rate at Rs.39,300/- per

Acre for Jirayat land. The learned Reference Court has then considered the

seasonally irrigated nature of the acquired land and has added 50% thereto,

resulting in the market value of Rs.58,950/- per Acre.


9.     The principal grievance of the appellant-State is with regard to the

extent of deduction applied to the sale instance at Exhibit 24. However, the

appellant-State has not been able to demonstrate from the evidence on

record that the said transaction was not genuine, nor has it been shown that

the land covered by the said transaction possessed any such material

advantage or superior characteristics as would require a higher deduction

than the one applied by the learned Reference Court. Significantly, no better

or more comparable sale instance has been brought on record by the

appellant-State so as to dislodge the sale instance relied upon by the learned

Reference Court.


10.    The learned Reference Court has thus considered the evidence

available on record and has made a deduction of 15% before determining

the market value for Jirayat land. It has thereafter granted an addition of

50% on account of the seasonally irrigated character of the acquired land.

The appellant-State has not pointed out any perversity or patent error in this

assessment so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
                                                                    13-FA-2744-2017.odt
                                          5


11.        Upon an independent re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I

find that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are based

upon the material available before it and do not suffer from any perversity,

illegality or material irregularity warranting interference. The market value

determined by the learned Reference Court at the rate of Rs.58,950/- per

Acre, together with the statutory benefits, therefore, does not call for

interference.


12.        Consequently, the First Appeal is dismissed.


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



                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE
S P Rane