PADMAKAR RAMRAO AMBEGAONKARversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:46444
                                                                         40-FA-677-2010.odt
                                                1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                              40 FIRST APPEAL NO. 677 OF 2010
                                 Padmakar Ramrao Ambegaonkar
                                             VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                               ……
          Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondent No.-State
          Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                               ……

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

          1.     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

          2.     The present First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award

          dated 03.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

          Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.223 of 2003.


          3.     The claimant owned agricultural land from Block No.32, situated at

          village Vadgaon, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. A portion of the said land

          was acquired for the construction of a Percolation Tank at village Vadgaon.

          The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

          short, “the Act”), was published on 28.11.2000. Thereafter, the Special Land

          Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on

          20.03.2002 and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.70,300/- per

          Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant

          accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18

          of the Act for enhancement of compensation.
                                                                   40-FA-677-2010.odt
                                       2

4.     The learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to

Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation so awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal

seeking further enhancement.

5.     Learned counsel for the claimant seeks further enhancement in the

compensation. The learned AGP supports the impugned Judgment and

Award and submits that the learned Reference Court has already granted

compensation at a rate higher than that indicated by the sale instance relied

upon. He, therefore, submits that no further enhancement is warranted.

6.     It is relevant to note that this Court has decided First Appeal No.678

of 2010, arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No.924 of 1988, today

itself. The said matter concerns the same claimant, and the acquired land

was treated as seasonally irrigated land. Having regard to the said

determination, the classification of the land in the present matter is also

required to be considered on that basis. As regards the well, the material

referred to in the earlier proceedings indicates that the well had been

acquired in the earlier acquisition and separate compensation had been

granted for it in 1993. Compensation for the same well cannot be granted

again in the present proceedings. Though the claimant’s evidence refers to

the existence of a well at the time of the subsequent acquisition, the

material referred to before this Court does not establish a sufficient basis for

granting separate compensation for a distinct well acquired under the

present notification.
                                                                   40-FA-677-2010.odt
                                        3


7.         While determining the market value, the learned Reference Court

relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 25 dated 10.05.2001. Under the said

sale instance, land admeasuring 27 Are was sold for a consideration of

Rs.50,000/-. The rate comes to Rs.1,85,185/- per Hectare


8.         The sale instance at Exhibit 25 pertains to the same village, though

the transaction is subsequent to the publication of the notification under

Section 4 of the Act. Even after applying a deduction of 10%, the rate works

out to approximately Rs.1,66,667/- per Hectare. The learned Reference

Court, however, determined the market value at Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare,

which is higher than the rate indicated by the said sale instance after the

aforesaid deduction. The material available on record, therefore, does not

furnish any basis for granting further enhancement over and above the rate

of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare awarded by the learned Reference Court.


10.        In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out for further

enhancement of compensation or for granting separate compensation for the

well in the present proceedings. The impugned Judgment and Award does

not warrant interference.


11.        The First Appeal is dismissed. Pending Civil Application, if any,

stands disposed of.


                                             [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                       JUDGE
S P Rane