RIDDHIDEVI ARVINDSING PARIHARversusTHE STATE OF MAH

2026:BHC-AUG:37373

                                                                                  FA 938/05
                                                   1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2005

                                RIDDHIDEVI ARVINDSING PARIHAR
                                              VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 ...
                              Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.D. Kasliwal
                               AGP for Respondents: Mr. B.A. Shinde
                                                 ...

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

            PER COURT :-

            1.    As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1981, 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 31.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior

            Division, Jalgaon in LAR No. 217/1984.

            3.    The land of the claimant admeasuring 1 H. 24 R. out of total area 13

            H. 52 R. of land from Block No. 187 situated at village Bhone Bk., Tal.

            Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon was acquired for implementation of extension of

            Gavthan scheme. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

            was issued on 18.8.1981 and was published on 8.10.1981. Declaration

            under section 6 of the Act was made on 20.5.1982 and was published on

            17.6.1982. Possession of the land was taken over ton 28.3.1983. Special

            Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on 4.2.1983 and

            has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per H. along with

            statutory benefits. Feeling inadequate compensation granted by SLAO, the

            appellant/claimant filed reference under section 18 of the Act. The reference
                                                                  FA 938/05
                                      2

court, after considering and examining the evidence on record, has rejected

the reference. Hence, present appeal is filed.

4.     Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant

submits that before the reference court, the claimant relied upon the sale

instance at Exh. 101 dated 17.5.1985, however, the learned reference court

wrongly held that the said sale instance was executed after publication of

section 4 notification and cannot be considered as comparable sale instance

and has rejected the reference. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that

the learned reference court has not considered the evidence on record in its

proper perspective and prayed to allow the appeal.

5.     The learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and award of the

reference court by submitting that the reference court has rightly not relied

upon the sale instance relied upon by the claimant which was executed after

the section 4 notification and prays to dismiss the appeal.

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

assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the

impugned judgment and award of the learned reference court. On perusal of

the same, it is seen that before the reference court the claimants relied

upon the sale instance, which was executed after section 4 notification,

therefore, the reference court has held that such sale instance cannot be

considered as comparable sale instance and rightly dismissed the reference.

In view of the above, I find that the reference court has not committed any

error while deciding the reference. The present appeals is devoid of merits

and the same is dismissed.

                                          ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/