VITHALRAO BABARAO MANE (LRS) SUBHASH AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:27617

                                                                              FA 3786/17
                                                   1

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3786 OF 2017
                                              WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 3788 OF 2017
                                              WITH
                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11938 OF 2021 IN FA/3788/2017
                                              WITH
                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11940 OF 2021 IN FA/3787/2017
                                              WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 3787 OF 2017
                                              WITH
                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11659 OF 2021 IN FA/3786/2017
                                              WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 3797 OF 2017
                                              WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 3798 OF 2017

                                      BABARAO TATERAO MANE
                                               VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                  ...
                             Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Arvind Deshmukh
                             AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. A.D. Wange
                                                  ...
                                  CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                  Dated         : July 07, 2026
              PER COURT :-

              1.     Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

              2.     In all the first appeals the original claimants/appellants herein are

              aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.7.2015 passed by the

              learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in LAR No. 13/2014 and

              other connected references arising out of the same award of Special Land

              Acquisition Officer (SLAO).

              3.     The lands of the claimants/appellants situated at village Kalgaon,

              Taluka Purna, District Parbhani came to be acquired for rehabilitation of

              flood affected village Nilla Tq. Purna, District Parbhani. The notification

              under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Thereafter
                                                                   FA 3786/17
                                        2

notice under section 6 of the Act was issued. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act and awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.1110/- per R. The claimants accepted the

compensation under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of

the Act.

4.    The learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award

determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.

3000/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so

awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeals.

5.    Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants submits

that before the reference court has sale deeds prior to section 4

notification were not placed on record and whatever the sale deeds which

were placed on record and relied upon by the claimant were of 2007 i.e.

after section 4 notification. The claimants filed application under Order 41

Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code and relied upon sale instances of 1999,

2003 and 2005 and therefore, he submits that considering the above, one

more opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner in stead of asking

the appellants to lead the evidence before this court.

6.    Per contra, the learned AGP strongly opposed for the same by

stating that here lands were acquired in the year 2006 and there was

opportunity to the claimants to place comparable sale instances before the

reference   court.   The    reference   court   has   enhanced   compensation

considering the sale instances of the year 2003 to 2005 and after

considering the highest sale deed, the amount was granted. Therefore, he

submits that there is no point in remanding these appeals to the reference

court to decide it again.
                                                                 FA 3786/17
                                      3

7.     Having    heard    the    learned     counsel   counsel    for   the

appellants/claimants and after going through the copy of the judgment and

award of the reference it appears that there is no dispute about the fact

that SLAO has considered sale instances from the same village of the year

2002-2005 and highest market rate as per the sale deed was granted. But

the fact remains that as the sale deeds prior to section 4 notification were

not placed before the reference court, I find that the claimants/appellants

filed and the sale deeds of the year 1997, 2003 and 2005 from the same

village. As the Land Acquisition Act is the social legislation and the

agriculturists whose land was acquired by the State, in my opinion proper

compensation should be granted for their acquired lands. Therefore, I am

inclined to allow the present appeals by setting aside the judgment and

award passed by the reference court.

8.     In view of the above, the matters are remanded back to the learned

reference court to decide the same afresh from the stage of evidence. The

appellants are at liberty to file an application seeking permission to give

fresh evidence in respect of comparable sale instances. The respondents

are at liberty to counter the same.

9.     It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to receive the

interest and other statutory benefits from the date of judgment and award

of the reference court till today. The reference court is directed to decide

the matter within a period of six months from today on its own merits in

accordance with law. Accordingly all the appeals are partly allowed. Civil

applications are disposed of.


                                           ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/