THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSversusPUNDALIK DHONDIBA SHINDE

2026:BHC-AUG:27092

                                                                         FA No. 644/15
                                                  1

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  33 FIRST APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2015

                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                              VERSUS
                                   PUNDALIK DHONDIBA SHINDE
                                                 ...
                               Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.R. Korde
                                                 ...

                                  CORAM       : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                  Dated       : July 07, 2026

              PER COURT :-

              1.     The learned AGP submits that the present appeal can be disposed of

              in view of the order dated 29.6.2026 passed by this Court in FA No.

              645/2015 (The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Shivaji Sangram Biradar

              and Ors.) and other connected matters. The said order reads thus :-

                        “1.   Heard learned AGP Mr. Korde for the appellant-State and
                        learned counsel Mr. Nandgavale holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar for
                        the respondents- claimants.

                        2.    These appeals arise out of the common Judgment and
                        Award dated 05.10.2012 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge,
                        Senior Division, Udgir, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.486 of
                        2010, 481 of 2010, 1423 of 2010, 508 of 2010 and 395 of 2010,
                        whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the
                        references and enhanced the compensation payable to the
                        claimants.

                        3.     The acquisition was undertaken for construction of the
                        Ring Road outside Udgir City. The acquired lands are situated at
                        villages Udgir, Somnathpur and Madlapur, Taluka Udgir, District
                        Latur. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
                        Act, 1894 was published on 17.06.1999. The Special Land
                        Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of
                        Rs.7,56,000/- per hectare for the lands situated at Udgir,
                        Rs.2,77,800/- per hectare for the lands situated at Somnathpur
                        and Rs.9,50,000/- per hectare for the lands situated at
                        Madlapur. The claimants accepted the compensation under
                        protest and sought references under Section 18 of the Act for
                        enhancement of compensation.
                                                   FA No. 644/15
                           2

4.     Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence,
the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired
lands. In LAR No.486 of 2010, compensation was determined at
the rate of Rs.32/- per square foot for the lands situated at
Udgir. In LAR Nos.481 of 2010, 508 of 2010 and 480 of 2010,
compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.40/- per square
foot for the lands situated at Madlapur. In Land Acquisition
Reference Nos.395 of 2010 and 1423 of 2010, compensation for
the lands situated at Somnathpur was enhanced at the rate of
Rs.11,000/- per R. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred
the present appeals.

5.     Learned AGP Mr. Korde submitted that the Land
Acquisition Officer had awarded different rates of compensation
after taking into consideration the location, nature and potential
of the acquired lands situated in different villages. According to
him, the Reference Court failed to appreciate these
distinguishing features and granted excessive compensation. He
further submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the
claimants pertained to small developed plots and, therefore,
could not have been treated as safe guides for determining the
market value of large tracts of acquired agricultural land. It was
also contended that the Reference Court failed to make
appropriate deductions while relying upon such sale instances.
On these grounds, he prays that the impugned Judgment and
Award be quashed and set aside.

6.     Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Nandgavale, holding for Mr.
V.G. Sakolkar for the respondents-claimants, supported the
impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the sale
instances relied upon by the claimants had already been
produced before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Land
Acquisition Officer discarded the same merely on the ground that
the transactions related to comparatively smaller pieces of land,
without assigning any other cogent reason. He submitted that
the sale deeds were genuine transactions executed prior to the
publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and
constituted the best available evidence for determination of
market value. According to him, the Reference Court has rightly
appreciated the entire evidence and rightly determined the
market value of the acquired lands. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeals.

7.    I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record and proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment and
Award.

8.    It is evident from the record that the claimants had placed
on record registered sale deeds executed prior to the publication
of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. These sale
transactions were also available before the Land Acquisition
                                                               FA No. 644/15
                                       3

          Officer. However, the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the said
          sale instances solely on the ground that they related to smaller
          pieces of land. Except for this reason, no material has been
          pointed out to demonstrate that the transactions were either not
          genuine or were otherwise unsuitable for determining the
          prevailing market value.

          9.     Merely because the comparable sale instances pertain to
          smaller extents of land, the same cannot be rejected outright. It
          is well settled that bona fide sale transactions executed within a
          reasonable period prior to the notification under Section 4
          constitute the best evidence of market value. If the transactions
          are otherwise comparable in respect of time, location and
          potentiality, they furnish a reliable basis for determining the
          compensation      payable.    Necessary    deductions,   wherever
          warranted, are matters of appreciation of evidence depending
          upon the facts of each case.

          10.    The Reference Court has considered the oral as well as
          documentary evidence in detail and has assigned cogent reasons
          while determining the market value of the acquired lands
          situated at the three villages. The enhancement granted by the
          Reference Court is founded upon legally admissible evidence and
          proper appreciation of the comparable sale instances. Learned
          AGP has not been able to point out any perversity, illegality or
          misreading of evidence warranting interference by this Court. I
          fined that the Reference Court has corrected the omission
          committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in ignoring the
          relevant sale instances produced by the claimants.

          12.   In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered
          opinion that the impugned common Judgment and Award does
          not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in
          these appeals.

          13.    The First Appeals stand dismissed.

          14.    Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.”


2.     In view of the above, the present first appeal stands dismissed.

Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of.



                                           ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/