RATNAJI SADASHIV PATIL THR LRS VISHWANATH AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:38229
                  Dilwale                                 1                  26-fa-793-08.odt




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   26 FIRST APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2008

                        Ratnaji Sadashiv Patil Thr Lrs Vishwanath And Ors
                                               VERSUS
                                The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
                                                    ...
             Advocate for Appellants : Mr. V. V. Ingale
             AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. B. A. Shinde
             Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Kalpalatapatil Bharaswadkar
                                                    ...
                                  CORAM            : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     DATE         : 18.08.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.        Admit.

             2.        As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1984, the appeal is

             heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective

             parties.

             3.        By this appeal, the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and

             award dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior

             Division, Omerga, in L.A.R. No. 1014 of 2005, whereby the learned

             Reference Court partly allowed the reference but did not grant

             compensation as claimed by the appellant.

             4.        The house properties bearing House Nos. 39, 40, 60 and 62 adm.

             711 sq. mtrs. situated at village Karajgaon, Taluka Omerga, District

             Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the purpose of the Lower Terna

             Project, Makani. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
     Dilwale                                     2                   26-fa-793-08.odt


Act was published on 31.05.1984, the notice under Section 12(2) was

issued on 20.04.1988 and the award under Section 11 was passed on

30.03.1988.

5.        The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of

Rs.1,04,698/- to the claimants. Being dissatisfied with the compensation

awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought

enhancement of compensation by filing a reference under Section 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, the claimants

claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the acquired properties and

relied upon the Valuation Report at Exhibit 29. However, upon

appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Reference

Court granted additional compensation of Rs.30,000/-. Being dissatisfied

with the same, the present appeal has been preferred.

6.        Mr. V. V. Ingale, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the

acquired properties consisted of House Nos. 39 and 40, which were

constructed houses, whereas House Nos. 60 and 62 were open plots. He

submits that the claimants had examined the valuer and relied upon the

Valuation Report at Exhibit 29. According to the learned counsel, the

valuer had inspected the acquired properties and assessed their value on

the basis of the D.S.R. rates prevailing for the years 1983-84. He,

therefore, submits that the appellants are entitled to enhanced

compensation on the basis of the said Valuation Report.

7.        Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the acquiring
     Dilwale                                  3                  26-fa-793-08.odt


body, submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had correctly

determined the compensation payable for the acquired properties.

Learned counsel further submits that though several properties in the

village were acquired, only a few claimants had obtained valuation

reports and relied upon the same for claiming enhanced compensation.

She further submits that the Valuation Report cannot be relied upon,

particularly when the structures were old and constructed with inferior

material, including murum and jungle wood. According to her, the

Special Land Acquisition Officer had personally considered the nature

and condition of the structures while determining the compensation. She,

therefore, submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly awarded

additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- and no further enhancement is

warranted.

8.        Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and,

with their able assistance, upon going through the record and

proceedings, it is clear that the claimants have mainly relied upon the

Valuation Report at Exhibit 29. The valuer has stated that he had

inspected the acquired properties and assessed their value on the basis of

the D.S.R. rates for the years 1983-84. However, the evidence on record

does not inspire confidence so as to place reliance upon the said report

for determining the market value of the acquired properties.

9.        It is pertinent to note that the claimants had filed the reference

seeking enhanced compensation without placing any contemporaneous
  Dilwale                                     4                    26-fa-793-08.odt


material regarding the valuation of the acquired structures. The Valuation

Report was subsequently brought on record during the course of

evidence. Apart from the Valuation Report, no independent and reliable

evidence has been produced to substantiate the valuation claimed by the

appellants.

10.    The evidence on record further indicates that out of the four

acquired properties, only House Nos. 39 and 40 were constructed

structures, whereas House Nos. 60 and 62 were open plots. The

Reference Court has considered the nature and condition of the acquired

properties and the evidence brought on record while determining the

compensation.

11.    In the absence of reliable and cogent evidence to establish that the

market value determined by the Reference Court is inadequate, no

interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award. I do not

find that the learned Reference Court has committed any error in

appreciating    the   evidence    and   determining     the     compensation.

Consequently, no case is made out for further enhancement of

compensation.

12.    The appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. No

order as to costs.

13.    Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                        [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.]