THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusBHIKAJI BALAJI CHAUDHARI AND ORS.

                      LSP                               1               12 fa 966.99.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         First Appeal No. 966 of 1999

                      The State of Maharashtra                       …         Appellant
                           v/s.
                      Bhikaji Balaji Chaudhari and others            …         Respondents


                       Mr. A.R.Patil                     Addl.G.P. for the Appellant.
                      Ms. Rukmini Khairnar (through Advocate for the Respondents.
                      V.C.) a/w. Mr. Bipin A. Singh i/b.
                      P.N.Joshi

                                               CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

                                                  DATE : 20th August 2026.

                      ORAL JUDGMENT:

                      1.    Heard learned AGP and learned Advocate Khairnar for the
                      Respondents.
         Digitally
         signed by
         LATA
LATA
SUNIL
         SUNIL
         PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
                      2.     The Reference Court as per the impugned judgment dated
         2026.08.24
         19:25:10
         +0530


                      30th July 1998 has disposed of two land references, they are LR Nos.
                      605/1991 and 606/1991. The present Respondents were the
                      claimants in Land Reference No.605/1991. The land belonging to
                      the respondents is bearing Gat No.862 ad measuring 0.80 Ares. It is
                      acquired for the purpose of S.T. stand. It is situated at Village
                      Vinchur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik. The Special Land Acquisition
                      Officer has offered a compensation of Rs.47,300/- per hectare and
LSP                               2              12 fa 966.99.doc


that is why the present Respondent has filed a Reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court as per
the impugned judgment has enhanced the compensation to the tune
of Rs.4,90,308/-. According to the State this is excess compensation
and present appeal is filed.

3.    Learned AGP has taken me to the contents of the Award and
he submitted that the two sale instances referred by the claimants
were relating to the non-agriculture land whereas land under
acquisition was an agriculture land. According to him the judgment
requires interference. Whereas according to learned Advocate Ms.
Khairnar even though the use of land is different, the Reference
Court has granted a deduction of 30% and no interference is
required.

4.    I have gone through the impugned judgment. On behalf of
the Respondents one Rajendra B. Chaudhary who is one of the
claimant has entered into the witness box and also exmined PW
No.2 - Suresh Deshmukh and PW No.3 - Santosh Dagade. They are
the persons who have purchased the lands in the Village Vinchur.
They have also produced the supporting documents which include
the sale deeds.    The Reference Court has discussed about their
evidence in Para No.9 onwards. The land under acquisition are
situated near Gathan of Vinchur on Nashik-Aurangabad State
Highway. At the time of acquisition the land adjoining the land
under acquisition were the non-agriculture land. The Reference
LSP                                3               12 fa 966.99.doc


Court has also referred about layout plan of their land. The Sub-
Divisional Officer has sent the letter for converting their land into
N.A. purpose. The Reference Court has also considered the
consolidation documents.

5.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer opined that the soil of
land was inferior being barad land, however, the Reference Court has
opined that these lands are having N.A. potentiality. It is no doubt
true even though the claimants have applied for N.A. permission, it
was not granted because till that time lands were notified for the
purpose of acquisition.

6.    The Reference Court has appreciated the evidence on the point
of sale instance in Para No.10. Witness No.2 Suresh Deshmukh was
Promoter of housing Society and the land was purchased for
constructing the house for the purpose of members. The distance in
between the land which is acquired is about ½ to ¾ th km whereas
another witness Suresh Dagade has purchased the land from one
Ashok Kale. The consideration of the sale deed is Rs.21,000/- The
Reference Court has also concluded that acquired lands are abutting
to the road and having N.A. potentiality. After appreciation of
evidence the Reference Court has concluded that the sale instances
pertain to the period which is having proximity in time and situation.
However, the learned Reference Court was conscious of the fact that
the land under acquisition was an agriculture land and that is why
while fixing the market value has granted deduction of 1/3rd. That is
LSP                                4              12 fa 966.99.doc


how the Reference Court concluded that the rate of Rs. 4,69,000/-
per hectare should be fixed for Gut No.862 in L.A.R. No.605/1991.
That is how the land value assessed by the Reference Court was
Rs.3,75,200/-. Accordingly, the Reference Court has granted
solatium of 30% and 12% component.

7.    If all the factors are considered, I do not think that the
compensation fixed by the Reference Court is on higher side. It is
true there are several factors which can be considered for
determining the market value which is prevailing on the date of the
notification. Rate fixed by the Reference Court in connected matter
or the sale instances for contemporaneous period will certainly help
the Court to decide the market value. In this the claimant has
produced sufficient evidence about the sale instances so as to assist
the Reference Court in arriving at the correct market value. So no
interference is required. The Appellant to pay deficit amount if any.
Further claims, if any, to be made before the Executing Court.

8.    Appeal stands dismissed.


                                            (S.M. MODAK, J.)