THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERversusIBRAHIM NAZIR KOTWAL

2026:BHC-AUG:40631
                                                                          5-FA-4761-2017.odt
                                                 1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4761 OF 2017

                             The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                           VERSUS
                                     Ibrahim Nazir Kotwal

                                            AND
                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 4762 OF 2017

                             The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                            VERSUS
                     Sarabi Husainsab Mulla (Died) Through L.Rs. Ajij (Died)
                                Through L.Rs. Yusuf And Another

                                              ……
          Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for Appellant-State
                                              …...


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

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

          respondents-claimants.


          2.     These appeals challenge the common Judgment and Award dated

          24.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in

          Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 653 of 2005 and 594 of 2005. By the said

          Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the

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

          the compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land at

          Rs.30/- per sq. metre, along with the statutory benefits.
                                                               5-FA-4761-2017.odt
                                      2


3.     The lands of the respondents-claimants, admeasuring 1 Hectare 60 R

and 2 Hectare 02 R, from Survey Nos.145/1/1 and 148/3, situated at village

Sastur, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, were acquired for the

rehabilitation of earthquake-affected persons from village Sastur. The

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published

on 12.01.1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award

under Section 11 of the Act on 22.10.1996 and determined the market value

at Rs.24,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so

determined, the claimants accepted the amount under protest and sought a

reference under Section 18 of the Act.


4.     Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the

sale instances at Exhibits 36, 37 and 38. The learned Reference Court did

not rely upon the said sale instances and, instead, considered the Judgment

and Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.601 of 2005. The said

reference also related to land situated at village Sastur, acquired for the

same project under the same notification. Relying upon the said

determination, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of

the acquired land at Rs.30/- per sq. metre.


5.     Learned AGP submits that the learned Reference Court was not

justified in relying upon the determination made in Land Acquisition

Reference No.601 of 2005, as the sale instances considered therein could
                                                                5-FA-4761-2017.odt
                                     3

not have been treated as comparable instances for determining the market

value of the lands involved in the present references. 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 perused

the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.


7.     There is no dispute that the lands involved in the present appeals are

situated at village Sastur and were acquired under the same notification for

the same purpose. The learned Reference Court, while determining the

market value, relied upon the determination made in Land Acquisition

Reference No.601 of 2005, which related to land situated in the same village

and forming part of the same acquisition.


8.     Though a determination made in another land acquisition reference

is not, by itself, binding for determining the market value in another

reference, it can certainly be considered as a relevant piece of evidence,

particularly where 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 such determination for the aforesaid

reasons.


9.     The Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market

value at Rs.24,000/- per Hectare, whereas the learned Reference Court

determined it at Rs.30/- per sq. metre. However, the learned AGP has not
                                                                5-FA-4761-2017.odt
                                         4

been able to point out any material to show that the determination in Land

Acquisition Reference No.601 of 2005 was wholly irrelevant or that the rate

of Rs.30/- per sq. metre determined by the learned Reference Court is

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

learned Reference Court did not accept the sale instances at Exhibits 36, 37

and 38 is not, in the facts of the present case, sufficient to warrant

interference with its determination.


10.         In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the approach

adopted by the learned Reference Court warranting interference by this

Court. The impugned Judgment and Award, therefore, calls for no

interference. Hence, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.


11.        The First Appeals are dismissed.



                                              [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                        JUDGE
S P Rane