STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusTRAMBAK VITHOBA DHANGAR

2026:BHC-AUG:45704
                                                                         206-FA-2800-2008.odt
                                                1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            206 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2800 OF 2008

                                   The State Of Maharashtra
                                           VERSUS
                                   Trambak Vithoba Dhangar

                                             ……
          Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellnt-State
          Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent-Claimant
                                             ……

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

          1.     Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


          2.     This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated

          03.04.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in

          Land Acquisition Reference No.1880 of 1998, 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

          awarded to the respondent-claimant along with the statutory benefits.


          3.     The respondent-claimant's land admeasuring 1 Hectare 71 R out of

          Gat No.392, situated at Village Yengaon, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon,

          came to be acquired for the purpose of submergence. The notification under

          Section 4 of the Act was published on 02.05.1985. The Special Land

          Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of the Act on
                                                               206-FA-2800-2008.odt
                                        2

20.05.1986 and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,345/-. The claimant,

having accepted the amount under protest, sought a reference under Section

18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.


4.     The learned Reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on

record, enhanced the market value to Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare for bagayat

land, Rs.50,000/- per Hectare for jirayat land and Rs.25,000/- per Hectare

for potkharab land, together with the statutory benefits. Hence, the present

appeal by the State.


5.     Learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the

learned Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation in the

absence of cogent and reliable evidence. According to him, the sale instance

relied upon by the Reference Court was not a comparable transaction as it

related to land situated at Village Bodwad and not at Village Yengaon. He

further submitted that the acquired land was dry land and that the

Reference Court erroneously treated it as bagayat land. It was, therefore,

submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside.


6.     Learned    counsel   for   the   respondent-claimant   supported       the

impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the sale instance relied

upon by the Reference Court was a bona fide transaction relating to land

situated at Village Bodwad, which is adjacent to the acquired land at Village

Yengaon, and was executed on 27.12.1982, i.e. prior to the notification
                                                                  206-FA-2800-2008.odt
                                       3

under Section 4 of the Act. He further submitted that the Reference Court,

upon considering the 7/12 extract and other evidence on record, rightly

treated the acquired land as bagayat land and determined the compensation

after considering the nature of the land.


7.     I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Record and

Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.


8.     The learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance at

Exhibit-13 relating to land situated at Village Bodwad, an adjoining village,

which was sold on 27.12.1982 for a consideration of Rs.37,000/-. Though

the transaction does not relate to the same village, the fact that it pertains to

an adjoining village would not, by itself, make the sale instance irrelevant.

The transaction is prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the

appellant has not pointed out any material circumstance demonstrating that

the sale instance was not genuine or that the lands covered by the

transaction were so dissimilar as to render it wholly incomparable.


9.     As regards the nature of the acquired land, the learned Reference

Court has considered the 7/12 extract and the other evidence on record and

has treated the relevant land as bagayat land. The Reference Court has also

separately considered the jirayat and potkharab portions and has awarded

different rates for the respective categories. No material has been brought

on record to show that the said finding is perverse or contrary to the

documentary evidence.
                                                                    206-FA-2800-2008.odt
                                            4


10.        Upon an independent consideration of the evidence on record, I find

that the learned Reference Court has based its determination on the relevant

material and has assigned separate rates having regard to the nature and

classification of the land. The compensation determined by the learned

Reference Court appears to be just, proper and reasonable. The findings

recorded by the learned Reference Court do not suffer from any perversity,

illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in appellate

jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be

dismissed.


11.        The First Appeal is dismissed.


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



                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE




S P Rane