THE STATE OF MAH AND ANRversusTUKARAM BANDAPPA BIRADAR AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:44661
                                                1 of 5                 910-FA.1849.2008



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1849 OF 2008

               TUKARAM BANDAPPA BIRADAR L.RS. SHIVDAS L.RS. KAMALBAI AND
                                                  ORS
                                                VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                   ...
               Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for Appellants.
               Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State.
               Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                   ...

                                               AND
                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2017

                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                VERSUS
                               TUKARAM BANDAPPA BIRADAR AND ORS
                                                   …
               Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State.
               Mr. P. P. Dudile, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2.1 to 2.3.
                                                   ...

                                         CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE    :       23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1983,

               the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates

               for the respective parties.

               2.        By the present appeals, the Appellants/Original Claimants as

               well as the State are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

               06.12.2005 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge,
                                  2 of 5                 910-FA.1849.2008



Udgir in LAR No.1830/2001 (Old No.299/1988), whereby the learned

Reference Court enhanced the compensation in favour of the

Claimants.

3.         Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-

(i)    The lands of the Claimants, admeasuring 1 Hectare 59 R out of

       land bearing Survey No.178 and 0.83 R out of land bearing

       Survey No.179, situated at village Jawalga, Taluka Udgir (now

       Deoni), District Latur, were acquired for the purpose of K. T. Weir,

       Girkchal Project.

(ii)   The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

       1894 (for short, “the Act”) came to be published on 25.08.1983.

(iii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award on

       16.09.1986 and granted the rate of Rs.174.90/- per R for 83 R of

       irrigated land and the rate of Rs.121.80/- per R for 1 Hectare 59

       R of land. Being aggrieved thereby, the Claimants sought

       reference under Section 18 of the Act.

(iv)   The Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below

       Exhibits-53, 54 and 55 and sought higher compensation than

       that awarded by the learned Reference Court. The learned

       Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.450/-

       per R. Therefore, the Claimants have filed the present appeal.

4.         Mr. V. V. Ingale, learned Advocate for the Appellants submits
                                 3 of 5                910-FA.1849.2008



that the Claimants have relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-53,

which is dated 29.03.1984, whereby 22 R of land from village

Dhangarwadi was sold for Rs.17,000/- along with the share in the well.

He further submits that, as per the sale instance below Exhibit-54, 2

Acres 38 R of land from village Gurdhal was sold for Rs.49,000/-. As

regards the sale instance below Exhibit-55, 1 Acre 1 R of land from

village Devani was sold for Rs.30,000/-. He submits that all these

villages are adjacent to the acquired village Jawalga and, therefore, the

learned Reference Court ought to have relied upon the said sale

instances and enhanced the compensation for the Claimants. However,

the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instances from the

same village, which were referred to by the SLAO while determining

the compensation, without considering the sale instances below

Exhibits-53, 54 and 55.


5.        Mr. S. G. Sangle, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2,

submits that the sale instances below Exhibits-53, 54 and 55 are from

different villages and, once the sale instances from the acquired village

were available, there was no necessity to consider the sale instances

from different villages. He submits that the SLAO has rightly

determined the compensation for the acquired village and, therefore,

prays for dismissal of the appeal.


6.        Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
                                 4 of 5                 910-FA.1849.2008



and with their assistance, I have gone through the record and

proceedings. As regards the land acquired, the same was situated at

village Jawalga, Taluka Udgir, and before the learned Reference Court,

there were sale instances available from the acquired village. On the

basis of the same, the SLAO had determined the compensation. The

Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits-53 to 55,

which are from village Dhangarwadi, Gurdhal and Devani. Therefore,

the learned Reference Court has rightly not considered the said sale

instances, but, on the basis of the sale instances available from the

same village and after considering the highest sale consideration,

granted the rate of Rs.450/- per R. Therefore, I find that the learned

Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation by granting

just and proper compensation.

7.        Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon the sale instances from

other villages when the sale instances from the acquired village are

available. It is not the case that the Claimants have relied upon the sale

instances from the acquired village and that those were not considered.

Rather, the entire claim is based upon the sale instances from other

villages. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Reference

Court has rightly determined the compensation and there is no further

scope to grant any further enhancement.

8.        Hence, First Appeal No.1849 of 2008 filed by the Claimants
                                           5 of 5                  910-FA.1849.2008



          is dismissed.

          9.        As regards First Appeal No.88 of 2017 filed by the State, the

          SLAO had granted the rate of Rs.121.80/- per R, whereas the learned

          Reference Court has granted the rate of Rs.450/- per R. Therefore, the

          enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court is within the

          limits of four times the compensation awarded by the SLAO.

          10.       In fact the State Government vide Government Resolution

          No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with

          Corrigendum     dated   23.02.2017        and   13.08.2018   to   the       said

          Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference,

          if compensation is enhanced only upto four times.


          11.       Hence, the First Appeal No.88 of 2017 filed by the State is

          dismissed.


          12.       In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil

          Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.



                                             (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef