VENKAT BAGWANRAO MUSANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:38173

                                                                            FA No. 614/09
                                                   1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 50 FIRST APPEAL NO. 614 OF 2009

                                  VENKAT BAGWANRAO MUSANE
                                             VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                 ...
                              Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S S Halkude
                             AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
                                                 ...

                                 CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                 Dated         : August 17, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1994, heard

            finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

            2.    By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment

            and award dated 23.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior

            Division, Ahmedpur Camp at Udgir in LAR No. 3004/2001, for further

            enhancement of compensation.

            3.    The land of the claimant admeasuring 137 R. from Gat No. 86

            situated at village Jaibhachiwadi, Tal. Udgir, District Latur was acquired for

            construction of percolation tank at village Jaibhachiwadi. The possession of

            the land was taken over in the year 1987 and to that effect the reference

            court has recorded finding that the possession of the acquired land was

            taken on 15.5.1987 and the land to the extent of 137 R. from Gat No. 86 of

            the present appellant was acquired. The SLAO has awarded compensation

            at the rate of Rs.10000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.250/- per R. Being dissatisfied

            with the meager compensation granted by the SLAO, the claimant filed

            above reference under section 18 of the Act. The reference court has
                                                             FA No. 614/09
                                      2

enhanced the compensation at the the rate of Rs.1000/- per R. Being

aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

4.    Mr. S.S. Halkude, learned counsel for claimant submits that after

considering the sale instance below Exh. 16 and the order passed in LAR

No. 777/1995, Exh. 19, the reference court has wrongly determined the

compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per R. Therefore, Mr. S.S. Halkude,

learned counsel for original claimants submits that as the lands involved in

LAR No. 777/1995 is from the same notification and for the same project

and from the same Gat number, the reference court ought to have

determined the compensation in view of the order in LAR No. 777/1995. He

further submits that as this order is passed on 18.2.1998, the claimants are

entitled to receive escalation of 10% for every year. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the judgments and orders of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No. 5311/2012 (arising out of SLP © No. 34284/2011)

in the case of Ahsanul Hoda Vs. State of Bihar dated 1.7.2013, Civil Appeal

Nos. 4028-4029/2007 in the case of Sardar Jogendra Singh (D) by LRs. Vs.

State of UP & Anr. dated 28.8.2008 and General Manager, Oil and Natural

Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. Reported in

(2008) 14 SCC 745 and contended that the claimants are entitled to receive

the cumulative escalation for every year. In the present case section 4

notification was published on 4.8.1994. The order passed in LAR No. 777/95

is dated 18.2.1998 and in that LAR section 4 notification was published on

24.5.1990. He submits that considering the above as in the present case

notification under section 4 was published in the year 1994, the claimants

are entitled to receive cumulative escalation for four years on the basis of

above LAR. He therefore prays to allow the appeal.
                                                              FA No. 614/09
                                     3

5.    Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP for State submits that as

regards the order in LAR No. 777/1995 is concerned, even though that is

from the same village, that cannot be considered as binding precedent as

the claimant has to prove his own case by leading evidence. He has invited

my attention to that LAR wherein the reference court relied upon the sale

instance from village Loni which is 2 k.m. away from the present land which

was acquired from village Jaibhachiwadi and therefore, only because the

reference court has decided the reference from the same village, that

cannot be considered as comparable sale instance while determining the

market value of acquired land. He further submits that as regards

cumulative escalation is concerned that cannot be by way of right and the

same has to be determined by the concerned court by considering the

evidence led by the claimant. In support of his contentions, he placed

reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central

Warehousing Corporation Vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala

(Dead) and Ors., reported in (2024) 13 SCC 805 and Manik Panjabrao

Kalmegh Vs. Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division Yavatmal and Ors.,

reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3185.

6.    Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their

assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and judgment

and award of the reference court. After going through the record and

proceeding, I find that the contention of the claimant cannot be accepted for

the reasons that in earlier round i.e. in LAR No. 777/1995 the lands were

acquired on 24.5.1990 and here in the present case possession was taken

over in the year 1987. It further revealed that even the sale instance on

which the reference court relied in LAR No. 777/1995 was of the year 1990
                                                              FA No. 614/09
                                     4

and that was of the village Loni and therefore, in this case, though the

possession was taken in the year 1987, the sale instance used in LAR No.

777/1995     cannot be considered    as comparable    sale   instance   while

determining the market value.

7.     Even in the present case also the reference court has considered the

sale instance, Exh. 16, which is from village Shelgaon, which is near to

Udgir and not from village Jaibhachiwadi. Therefore, considering the above,

the reference court has rightly determined the market value of the acquired

land and therefore, I hold that no case is made out by the claimant for

further enhancement. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and same is

dismissed.



                                         ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/