GODAWARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AURANGABADversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:38101
                                                                              33-FA-951-09.odt
                                                   1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 33 FIRST APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2009
               Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad
                Through its Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project, Division Latur.
                                             VERSUS
                               The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                            AND
               FA/1376/2009 AND FA/941/2009 AND FA/943/2009 AND FA/947/2009
                                            AND
                FA/949/2009 AND FA/948/2009 AND FA/940/2009 AND FA/952/2009
                                            AND
                FA/938/2009 AND FA/942/2009 AND FA/945/2009 AND FA/944/2009
                                           AND
                        FA/946/2009 AND FA/950/2009 AND FA/939/2009
                                              ......
          Mr. B.R. Survase, Advocate for the Appellant-acquiring body in all FAs
          Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent No.1 in all FAs
                                              ......

                                            CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                            DATE       : 14 AUGUST, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.        FA/1376/2009,      FA/941/2009,      FA/943/2009,       FA/974/2009,

          FA/949/2009, FA/948/2009, FA/940/2009, FA/952/2009,               FA/938/2009,

          FA/942/2009, FA/945/2009, FA/944/2009, FA/946/2009,               FA/950/2009,

          FA/939/2009 are not on board. Upon mentioning, the same is taken on

          board.


          2.        Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


          3.        By the present appeals, the appellant-acquiring body challenges the

          common impugned Judgment and Award dated 27.04.2007 passed by the

          learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in LAR Nos. 670/2000,
                                                                   33-FA-951-09.odt
                                       2

658/2000,    223/2000,     224/2000,       659/2000,   660/2000,   661/2000,

662/2000,    663/2000,     664/2000,       665/2000,   666/2000,   670/2000,

872/2000, 170/2003, 171/2003, whereby the learned Reference Court

enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre

for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated lands.


4.     The land belonging to the claimants was acquired for the Rena

Medium Project, Taluka Renapur, District Latur. The notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), was

published on 14.03.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the

award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.03.1999 and awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per acre for dry lands. The

claimants accepted the said compensation under protest, reserving their

right to claim enhanced compensation. Being dissatisfied with the award,

the claimants preferred the aforesaid LARs under Section 18 of the Act.


5.     The learned Reference Court, by relying upon the sale instances at

Exhibits 42, 48 and 44, determined the market value and granted enhanced

compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre for semi-irrigated lands

and Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated lands. Being dissatisfied with the

quantum of compensation so awarded, the appellant-acquiring body has

preferred the present appeals.
                                                                  33-FA-951-09.odt
                                     3

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring body submits that the

learned Reference Court has granted excessive compensation by relying

upon the sale instances which were not comparable with the acquired lands.

It is submitted that the enhancement granted by the learned Reference

Court is unwarranted and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award

deserves to be set aside.


7.     After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I

have gone through the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the

Record and Proceedings.


8.     It appears that the learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale

instance dated 08.02.1993, whereby 2 Acres of land was sold for a

consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. The said sale instance pertains to dry land.

In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was

published on 14.03.1996. The learned Reference Court has also considered

the 7/12 extracts and the sale instances at Exhibits 42, 48 and 44 and, upon

consideration of the evidence on record, determined the market value at the

rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.2,00,000/- per

Acre for irrigated lands.


9.     Considering the aforesaid material on record, I find that the learned

Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has

rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands. The enhanced
                                                                         33-FA-951-09.odt
                                          4

compensation is slightly more than four times the amount awarded by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to

be excessive or exorbitant.


10.        Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment

and Award. No case is made out for entertaining the present appeals. Hence,

the appeals deserve to be dismissed.


11.        The First Appeals are dismissed.


12.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE

S P Rane