Judgment · High Court · 2026

( 5 ) FA-1574-2009 + ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 267 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Vilas Pandurang ShendgeAge: Minor, U/G of Real Mother 2.Dhondabai Pandurang ShendgeAge: 50 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2011.Anirudha Govind MoreAge: 57 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.… APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur. ( 6 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 266 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Venkat Krushna PawarAge: 36 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2284 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS ( 7 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Sow. Chandrakala Nivruti PhadAge: 47 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1575 OF 2009Dagdu Baliram MoreDied Through LRs…1.Laxman Dagdu MoreAge: 52 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Smt. Mankarnabai Dagdu MoreAge: 92 years, Occu: Household,3.Maruti Dagdu MoreAge: 72 years, Occu: Service,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.4.Sow. Karuna Madankumar HupateAge: 60 years, Occu: Household,R/o. Mumbai Road, Nashik,Tq. & Dist. Nashik.5.Sow. Meghana Balbhim IrapeAge: 57 years, Occu: Household,R/o. Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.6.Sow. Jyoti Shrikishan Satpute Irape ( 8 ) FA-1574-2009 + Age: 55 years, Occu: Household,R/o. Ghat Pimpari, Tq. Washi,Dist. Osmanabad.7.Balaij Dagdu MoreAge: 50 years, Occu: Medical Practitioner,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.… APPELLANTS VERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 263 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.… APPELLANTS VERSUSDagdu Baliram MoreDied Through LRs…1.Laxman Dagdu MoreAge: 52 years, Occu: Agri., ( 9 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.Smt. Mankarnabai Dagdu MoreAge: 92 years, Occu: Household,3.Maruti Dagdu MoreAge: 72 years, Occu: Service,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.4.Sow. Karuna Madankumar HupateAge: 60 years, Occu: Household,R/o. Mumbai Road, Nashik,Tq. & Dist. Nashik.5.Sow. Meghana Balbhim IrapeAge: 57 years, Occu: Household,R/o. Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.6.Sow. Jyoti Shrikishan Satpute IrapeAge: 55 years, Occu: Household,R/o. Ghat Pimpari, Tq. Washi,Dist. Osmanabad.7.Balaij Dagdu MoreAge: 50 years, Occu: Medical Practitioner,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 291 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer, ( 10 ) FA-1574-2009 + Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Sudam Gyanoba More WaghmareAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 269 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Shivaji Laxman ShindeAge: 42 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Shankar Laxman ShindeAge: 35 years, Occu: Agri.,Both R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ( 11 ) FA-1574-2009 + 3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Mahadeo Bapurao DeshmukhAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2011Dattatray Vajinath BokadeAge: 72 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur. ( 12 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2297 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Kaushabai Bhujangrao MoreAge: 36 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 371 OF 2011Ram Ganpati MoreDied Through LRs…1.Anjali d/o. Ram MoreAge: 12 years, Occu: Education,2.Kalpesh s/o. Ram MoreAge: 15 years, Occu: Education,Both under guardian of their ( 13 ) FA-1574-2009 + Natural Mother Appellant No.3.3.Usha w/o. Ram MoreAge: 40 years, Occu: Household,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1577 OF 20091.Baburao Malba DeshmukhDied Through LRs…i.Mahadeo Baburao DeshmukhAge: 55 years, Occu: Agri.,ii.Shrihari Baburao DeshmukhAge: 50 years, Occu: Agri.,iii.Bharat Baburao DeshmukhAge: 48 years, Occu: Agri.,iv.Bhagwat Baburao DeshmukhAge: 45 years, Occu: Agri.,v.Vasant Baburao DeshmukhAge: 41 years, Occu: Agri., ( 14 ) FA-1574-2009 + All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 259 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Jalindhar Tulsiram GhayalAge: 60 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Navnath Tulsiram GhayalAge: 22 years, Occu: Agri.,3.Prabhakar Tulsiram GhayalAge: 20 years, Occu: Agri.,4.Gorakh Tulsiram GhayalAge: 38 years, Occu: Agri., ( 15 ) FA-1574-2009 + All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.5.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2288 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Nagnath Hanmantrao KanameAge: 55 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 369 OF 2011WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3677 OF 2026Subhash Narsing KorkalleAge: 42 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS ( 16 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 311 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Vijaykumar Mohanrao MoreAge: 28 years, Occu: Agri.,Both R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2287 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. ( 17 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Kondiba Gangaram WaghmareAge: 55 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Namdeo Bali MoreAge: 65 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2011 ( 18 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Arun Pandurang MoreAge: 43 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Sanjay Pandurang MoreAge: 38 years, Occu: Agri.,Both R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2283 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Bhagwan Vithoba MoreAge: 60 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTS ( 19 ) FA-1574-2009 + ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 367 OF 2011.Kaushabai Bhujangrao MoreAge: 44 years, Occu: Agri. & Household,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 293 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Shripati Ganpati TaralkarAge: 68 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTS ( 20 ) FA-1574-2009 + ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2011.Mohan Rangrao MoreAge: 68 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2009 1.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Shivaji Bapurao JadhavAge: 60 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Tukaram Bapurao JadhavAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,3.Tukaram Shahajirao Jadhav ( 21 ) FA-1574-2009 + Age: 28 years, Occu: Agri.,4.Dnyanoba Shahajirao JadhavAge: 35 years, Occu: Agri.,5.Kisan Dattatraya JadhavAge: 48 years, Occu: Agri.,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.6.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 262 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Deepak Arjun BansodeAge: Major, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2282 OF 2014 ( 22 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Vithal Nivruti WaghmareAge: 30 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2011.Kaushabai Bhujangrao MoreAge: 44 years, Occu: Agri. & Household,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2009 ( 23 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Vinod Raosaheb MoreAge: 38 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Shahajirao Saduram JambaldareAge: 65 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of Maharashtra ( 24 ) FA-1574-2009 + Through Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 292 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Vasant Bhanudas MoreAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2293 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS ( 25 ) FA-1574-2009 + .Ram Ganpati MoreDied Through LRs…1.Anjali d/o. Ram MoreAge: 04 years, Occu: Nil,2.Kalpesh s/o. Ram MoreAge: 04 years, Occu: Nil,Both U/G of their Mother.3.Usha w/o. Ram MoreAge: 32 years, Occu: Household,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.4.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Sow. Trivenibai Arjun BansodeAge: 50 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ( 26 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2011.Mahadeo Bapurao DeshmukhAge: 55 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2286 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Bapurao Nivruti JambaldareAge: 60 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of Maharashtra ( 27 ) FA-1574-2009 + Through Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 261 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Ganpati Namdeo ShindeAge: 78 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2291 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS ( 28 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Subhash Madhav JambaldareAge: 35 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 287 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Shankar Chander MoreAge: 42 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2285 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. ( 29 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Kaushabai Bhujangrao MoreAge: 36 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 310 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Subhash Narsing KorkalleAge: 42 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2298 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada Irrigation ( 30 ) FA-1574-2009 + Development CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Shripati Govind MoreAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Baliram Govind MoreAge: 60 years, Occu: Agri.,3.Anant Govind MoreAge: 30 years, Occu: Agri.,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.4.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2011.Nagnath Hanumantrao KanameAge: 63 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur. ( 31 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 313 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Sahebrao Kisanrao MoreAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 260 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS ( 32 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Pralhad Namdeo MoreAge: 50 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 309 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Rajendra Pandurang JambaldareAge: 30 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2280 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. ( 33 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Anirudha Govind MoreAge: 49 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2289 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Janardhan Gangaram WaghmareAge: 50 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2009 ( 34 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Vidyasagar Maroti MoreAge: Major, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 288 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Digambar Gangaram WaghmareAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of Maharashtra ( 35 ) FA-1574-2009 + Through Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2296 OF 20141.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Dattatraya Vaijanath BokadeAge: Major, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1576 OF 2009.Sow. Trivenabai Arjun BansodeAge: 58 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.… APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer, ( 36 ) FA-1574-2009 + Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 307 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Baliram Govind MoreAge: 55 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS ( 37 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Pralhad Namdeo MoreAge: 45 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Vasant Namdeo MoreAge: 42 years, Occu: Agri.,Both R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 265 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Udhav Venkatrao MoreAge: 35 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Madhav Venkatrao MoreAge: 30 years, Occu: Agri.,3.Shivaji Venkatrao MoreAge: 26 years, Occu: Agri.,4.Shankar Venkatrao MoreAge: 23 years, Occu: Agri., ( 38 ) FA-1574-2009 + All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.5.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 264 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Ankush Govindrao MoreAge: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2011.Vasant Bhanudas MoreAge: 48 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur. ( 39 ) FA-1574-2009 + 2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 370 OF 20111.Shripati Govind MoreAge: 48 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Baliram Govind MoreAge: 68 years, Occu: Agri.,3.Anant Govind MoreAge: 38 years, Occu: Agri.,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 314 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer, ( 40 ) FA-1574-2009 + Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Arun Pandurang MoreAge: 35 years, Occu: Agri.,2.Sanjay Pandurang MoreAge: 30 years, Occu: Agri.,Both R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 20091.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Rajendra Vithalrap PatilAge: 60 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTS ( 41 ) FA-1574-2009 + ANDFIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 9619 OF 2008WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5908 OF 20081.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Chandrakant Gundu MoreAge: 74 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 9511 OF 2008WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5954 OF 20081.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTS ( 42 ) FA-1574-2009 + VERSUS1.Baburao Malba DeshmukhAge: Major, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 9523 OF 20081.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUSSow. Dagdubai Govind MoreDied Through LRs...1.Shripati Govind MoreAge: Major, Occu: Agri.,2.Baliram Govind MoreAge: Major, Occu: Agri.,Both R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.3.Anant Govind MoreDied Through LRs… ( 43 ) FA-1574-2009 + 3-1.Jaymala Anant MoreAge: 43 years, Occu: Household,3-2.Dipali Anant MoreAge: 14 years, Occu: Student,3-3.Shubham Anant MoreAge: 12 years, Occu: Student,3-4.Sonali Anant MoreAge: 10 years, Occu: Student,3-5.Madhuri Anant MoreAge: 8 years, Occu: Student,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.4.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 9519 OF 2008WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5975 OF 20081.Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment CorporationThrough Its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.2.Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … APPELLANTSVERSUS ( 44 ) FA-1574-2009 + 1.Shivaji Chandar MoreDied Through LRs...1.1.Tejabai Shivaji MoreAge: 45 years, Occu: Household,1.2.Archana Kiran KamkhedeAge: 25 years, Occu: Household,1.3.Jyoti Pandit ZangurdeAge: 23 years, Occu: Household,1.4.Ravi Shivaji MoreAge: 21 years, Occu: Agri.,1.5.Kiran Shivaji MoreAge: 18 years, Occu: Agri.,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.Sandipan Chandar MoreAge: 42 years, Occu: Agri.,3.Dinkar Chandar MoreAge: 28 years, Occu: Agri.,4.Maroti Chandar MoreAge: 28 years, Occu: Agri.,All R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur.5.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.… RESPONDENTS... ( 45 ) FA-1574-2009 + Ms. Chanchal alongwith Mr. A. A. Phad, Advocate for the appellant Nos.1 & 2 in F.A. No. 1574/2009.Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar for appellant Nos. 3 to 5 in F. A. No.1574/2009 and respective appellants and respondents in connected firstappeals (through V.C.).Mr. G. D. Kale, Advocate for appellants in F.A. No. 371/2011 and F. A.No. 1575/2009.Mr. V. K. Kotecha, A.G.P. for the State.Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for respective appellants and respondents forG.M.I.D.C.Mr. G. K. Sontakke, Advocate for respective respondents.CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT ANDSUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.Date on which reserved for judgment : 02nd April, 2026.Date on which judgment pronounced : 22nd June, 2026. JUDGMENT (PER KISHORE C. SANT, J.) :- 1.This group of appeals arises out of judgment and awards passed bythe learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur. Some appealsare preferred by the acquiring body challenging the judgment and awardpassed by the learned Reference Court i.e. 2nd Joint Civil Judge SeniorDivision, Latur. The claimants have also filed appeals challengingjudgment and award to the extent of not granting enhancement by thelearned Reference Court as prayed for by the claimants. For the purposeof convenience following chart is prepared showing the appeals ( 46 ) FA-1574-2009 + preferred by the acquiring body and by the claimants.Sr.No. L.A.R. Nos.Judgmentand awarddateF.A. filed byAcquiring BodyF.A. filed byclaimantsGroup I1.315/199920.02.2007264/2009-2.316/1999288/2009-3.317/1999308/2009-4.318/1999290/2009-5.320/1999231/2009-6.321/1999287/2009-7.322/1999309/2009-8.324/1999st. 9619/2008-9.325/1999307/2009-10.326/1999293/2009-11.327/1999310/2009369/201112.331/1999265/2009-13.332/1999314/2009398/201114.333/1999258/2009-15.439/1999311/2009-16.440/1999292/2009368/2011Group II17.604/199916.03.2007272/2009-18.605/1999267/2009-19.607/1999260/2009-20.608/1999263/20091575/200921.610/1999st. 9523/2008-22.823/1999273/2009-23.916/1999268/20091574/200924.917/1999st. 9519/2008-25.919/1999st. 9511/20081577/200926.920/1999269/2009- ( 47 ) FA-1574-2009 + 16.03.200727.921/1999262/2009-28.922/1999270/20091576/200929.923/1999271/2009-30.924/1999259/2009-31.925/1999261/2009-32.958/1999266/2009-33.1068/1999313/2009-Group III34.379/199923.02.20072282/2014-35.380/19992280/2014375/201136.381/19992289/2014-37.382/19992286/2014-38.383/19992292/2014359/201139.385/19992296/2014374/201140.388/19992294/2014-41.389/19992287/2014-42.390/19992291/2014-43.391/19992298/2014370/201144.392/19992288/2014373/201145.394/19992284/2014-46.395/19992285/2014367/201147.396/19992283/2014-48.397/19992293/2014371/201149.398/19992281/2014358/201150.399/19992297/2014372/201151.401/19992295/2014-2.Since the appeals are arising from the common judgment inL.A.R’s. and are arising out of the same acquisition proceeding bearingNo. 1993/LA/CR-101 all the appeals are taken up together and are ( 48 ) FA-1574-2009 + being decided by way of common judgment by consent of the parties. Inall the appeals record and proceeding is received. First AppealNo. 1574/2009 is already admitted.3.The parties are referred to as claimants and acquiring body for thepurpose of convenience. The facts in short giving rise to the presentappeals are that the claimants were the owners and possessors of thelands acquired for the purpose of construction of minor irrigation projectKatpur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. The total land acquired in this group is 104Hectares and 24 R from villages Khopegaon, Kanheri, Wasangaon andLatur. The lands are acquired from the villages as below :VillageArea Khopegaon101 H 58 RKanheri1 H 29 RWasangaon0.74 RLatur0.63 R Total =104 H 24 R4.The possession of the lands was taken on 16.05.1992. Thepreliminary notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (forshort “the said Act”) was published on 05.05.1994. On 19.05.1994 ( 49 ) FA-1574-2009 + notification was published in the Government Gazette. On 31.10.1994local publication was made. On 10.11.1995 notification under section 6of the said Act came to be issued in the Government Gazette. The localpublication of the notification under section 6 of the said Act was issuedon 14.04.1996. The award came to be passed by the Special LandAcquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) granting compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Hectare for villages Khopegaon and Wasangaon, Rs.1,60,000/- per Hectare for village Kanheri and Rs. 2,40,000/- perHectare for Latur. 5.The claimants, being aggrieved by the award approached theCollector by filing references under section 18 of the said Act. Thereferences came to be referred to the Civil Court. The learned 2nd JointCivil Judge Senior Division, Latur clubbed the references. By way ofpursis common evidence was laid in L.A.R. No. 604/1994 i.e. FirstAppeal No. 272/2009. The learned Reference Court on recording theevidence and on appreciation held that the appropriate rate would beRs. 4,00,000/- per Acre considering all the lands as dry land except land ( 50 ) FA-1574-2009 + in L.A.R. No. 925/1999. In addition, the learned Reference Courtawarded rental compensation in L.A.R. Nos. 823/1999, 916/1999,920/1999, 922/1999, 924/1999 and 925/1999 and also awardedcompensation towards trees alongwith all the statutory benefits. It is thecase of the claimants that the rate awarded is inadequate andinsufficient. The learned Reference Court ought to have awarded thecompensation at the rate of Rs. 20,00,000/- per Acre. On the otherhand, by preferring the appeal, the acquiring body has challenged thequantum stating that the amount awarded by the learned ReferenceCourt is exorbitant. The S.L.A.O. had rightly granted the compensationby considering the sale instances from the year 1990 onwards. The readyreckoner rate was even lesser than the rate awarded by the S.L.A.O. It isthus prayed that the appeals of the acquiring body deserves to beallowed by rejecting the appeals filed by the claimants.6.This Court has heard the parties and has gone through the record.The Civil Application No. 3677/2026 is filed for considering additionalevidence. ( 51 ) FA-1574-2009 + 7.The learned advocate Mr. Jamalpurkar for the claimantsvehemently argued that the learned Reference Court has failed toappreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The lands are situatedon Latur-Solapur Highway. There was material to show that the landsare irrigated lands where the crop like Sugarcane was taken. However,the learned Reference Court still treated the lands to be dry lands andhas committed an error. By way of additional evidence, it is shown thatin subsequent awards learned Reference Court has granted the rate ofRs. 37.5 per sq. ft. He further submitted that interest under section 34of the said Act is not granted and he prays for allowing the first appeals. .Learned Advocates Mr. Kale, Mr. Phad and Mr. Sontakke adoptedthe arguments of learned Advocate Mr. Jamalpurkar.8.The learned advocate Mr. Sangle for the acquiring bodyvehemently argued his appeals and opposed the appeals of theclaimants. He submitted that the lands were taken in possession byprivate negotiation. The award was rightly passed by the S.L.A.O. Nointerference was required by the learned Reference Court. He alsosubmitted on record written notes of arguments. He submitted that the ( 52 ) FA-1574-2009 + learned Reference Court considered the sale deed dated 31.05.1997which is after the date of notification which could not have beenconsidered. He invited attention to the deposition of the witnesses. Thesale deed dated 31.05.1997 was in respect of the land which wasacquired for the hostel. The transactions which are considered by theCourt were commercial transactions. The valuer’s evidence is wronglybelieved by the Court. The expert witness could not be said to be anexpert witness as he was only having M.Sc. PH.D. in Agronomy that isonly crop science and not in Horticulture. So far as additional evidenceis concerned, he submitted that, no case is made out to consider theadditional evidence. He prays for allowing the appeals of the acquiringbody by rejecting the appeals of the claimants. He relied upon thefollowing judgments :(i)Smt. Padma Uppal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 330.(ii)Prithvi Raj Taneja (Dead) By L.Rs. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (1977) 1 SCC 684.(iii)Ravinder Narain And Another Vs. Union Of India, (2003) 4 SCC 481.(iv)Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and others Vs. K. S. Gangadharappa and Another, ( 53 ) FA-1574-2009 + (2009) 11 SCC 164.(v)A. Natesam Pillai Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, (2010) 9 SCC 118.(vi)Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. M. K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714.(vii)Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2012) 5 SCC432.(viii)State of Maharashtra Vs. Santaram Mahadu Pingle and Others, 2008 (3) Bom.C.R. 715.(ix)State of H.P. Vs. Jailal and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 280.(x) Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and Another, (2009) 15SCC 769.(xi)G.M.I.D.C. and Another Vs. Nanasaheb Apparao More, in First Appeal No. 5148/2017 passed by this Court.(xii)Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, (1988) 3 SCC 751.(xiii)Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by L.Rs. And Others, (2005) 12 SCC 1.(xiv) Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs and others Vs. Officer on Special Duty (Land ( 54 ) FA-1574-2009 + Acquisition) and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 634.(xv)Radhey Sham Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2022) 17 SCC 148.(xvi)Subh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2010) 1 SCC 444.9.On hearing the arguments and submissions this Court has toconsider (i) as to whether the learned Trial Judge has rightly enhancedthe compensation and the compensation awarded is adequate andsufficient compensation and (ii) whether the impugned judgmentrequires interference at the hands of this Court. 10.In support of the case of the claimants they examined fivewitnesses. In group No. 1 Vijaykumar More is examined as PW-1, ingroup No. 2 Gangadhar Jadhav and in group No. 3 Nagnath Kaname isexamined as PW-1. Except PW-1 all other witnesses are same in all thethree groups i.e. PW-2 Keshav Pawar, PW-3 Dnyanoba Pinate,PW-4 Ramchandra Baraskar and PW- 5 Govind Parikh . They relied uponthe copy of sale deed dated 31.05.1997, sale deed dated 15.10.1994,award dated 04.04.1998 in respect of some other lands from the same ( 55 ) FA-1574-2009 + village. They also relied upon deposition of one Mr. Bajrang Malu. Asagainst that, the acquiring body has examined only one witness i.e.Manohar Pandurang Gaikwad. 11.Witness Vijaykumar More is the claimant in L.A.R. No. 439/1999.He stated in his evidence that the land acquired is of rich quality and iswell developed. The land would fetch Rs. 21 Lakh per Acre for irrigatedland and Rs. 10 Lakh for dry land. In addition he stated that there wasWell situated in his land. There were trees, tubewell, Horticulture in theland. He also claimed that certain trees were standing in the land andsome structure. He relied upon the sale deed in respect of land SurveyNo. 42 of village Kanheri which was sold by one Brijlal Joshi to BajrangMalu. Under sale deed 12 R land was sold for consideration ofRs. 1,80,000/- and the same is at the distance of one k.m. from the landacquired. He deposed that, he had taken sugarcane crop in the land. Hewas also cultivating vegetables and flowers. He was gettingRs. 1,00,000/- per Acre from the land by providing irrigation facilities.The distance of Khopegaon is hardly one k.m. from the Latur city. There ( 56 ) FA-1574-2009 + are facilities available in the village. He relied upon the award in LandAcquisition Reference No. 509/1993 where the Court awarded thecompensation at the rate of Rs. 66/- per sq. ft. and the said land isaround one k.m. from his land. In the cross-examination, he could notstate as to when the land came into municipal council limits. He did notfile 7/12 extract showing that he was having Well and borewell in hisland. He accepted that his land is at the distance of 5 to 6 k.m. from theland of one Babasaheb Jadhav acquired for road. Thus, it is seen that hecould not produce any evidence that the lands are irrigated lands.12.Witness Keshav Pawar is examined as an expert witness. Thiswitness was a Dean in Agricultural University, Parbhani. He wasprofessor of Agronomy. He had given evidence in respect of trees in theland. In the cross-examination he accepted that he did not issueintimation to the Collector before visiting the spot for preparingvaluation report. He was not possessing any registration certificate fromconcerned department to show that he was registered valuer. He couldnot tell details of plantation. ( 57 ) FA-1574-2009 + 13.Next witness Dnyanoba Pinate was examined as he sold his land inthe year 1997 to one Shahu College at Latur at the rate ofRs. 12,00,000/-. The said land admeasures one Acre. In the cross-examination he answered that his land is near to one Cinema Theatre. 14.Bajrang Malu who purchased the land and was examined statedabout the purchase of land of 20 R from Brijlal Joshi for Rs.1,80,000/-from Survey No. 42. He stated that at the relevant time the rate ofagricultural land was Rs. 8,00,000/- per Acre. In the cross-examinationhe accepted that the land was purchased jointly with one Abdul Karimand he has paid only Rs. 90,000/- towards his share. He could not givethe boundaries of Survey No. 42.15.Ramchandra Baraskar is examined as expert witness as he was inservice as Surveyor Assistant and thereafter became valuer andconsultant. He deposed that there was Well situated in the land withborewell. He accepted that he was not accompanied by any independentperson while taking the survey. He had taken the rough notes ofmeasurement. However, he could not produce the notes of the same ( 58 ) FA-1574-2009 + report. No notice was served upon the Government prior to his visit tothe land. 16.The last witness Govind Parikh who has seen the sale deedbetween Brijlal Joshi and Bajrang Malu.17.So far as appeals in group Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, though PW-1 is different, however, they have deposed on the same lines as that ofPW-1 in appeals in group No. 1 and therefore, their evidence is notseparately discussed.18.The respondent/acquiring body examined Mr. Manohar PandurangGaikwad as DW-1 in all the three groups. DW-1 deposed that, he gavethe date of acquisition of land and the purpose for which the land isacquired. He stated that, the valuation was properly done by theS.L.A.O. on considering the relevant material such as earlier saleinstances of the lands in near area. In the cross-examination, hespecifically deposed that, he never saw personally the structure andconstruction on the land acquired. He could not give the names of the ( 59 ) FA-1574-2009 + officers who were present at the time of measurement. He could notgive the names of the claimants. He could not identify the claimants.He could not give the survey numbers. This witness was working as SubDivisional Engineer in Minor Irrigation since 2003. At the relevant timehe was working at Omerga, District Osmanabad. On going through hisevidence, this Court finds that, his evidence is not of much use to therespondent.19.On this evidence and by considering various judgments the learnedReference Court came to conclusion that the proper value of the landwould be Rs. 4,00,000/- per Acre considering the lands to be dry landsexcept irrigated land where he awarded the rate of Rs. 8,00,000/- perAcre. Before discussing the evidence and dealing with the submissionswe feel it necessary to discuss the judgments relied upon by the parties.20.In the case of Smt. Padma Uppal and Others (supra), the Hon’bleApex Court considered that the sale instances of the small piece of landneed not be considered for the purpose of deciding the adequatecompensation when large area of land is acquired. In the case of ( 60 ) FA-1574-2009 + Ravinder Narain And Another (supra), it is again held that, the rate fixedof smaller plot in the same vicinity can be the basis for fixation of ratefor large area acquired. The Court is free to make comparison of theprices paid for small piece of land subject to necessary deductions andadjustments. The judgment in the case of Karnataka Urban Water SupplyAnd Drainage Board And Others (supra) is again on the consideration ofthe sale instances of the small area.21.In the case of Prithvi Raj Taneja (supra), it is held that, the Courthas to consider the market value of the land on the date of publication ofthe notification under section 4 of the said Act.22.In the case of A. Natesam Pillai (supra), the Court discussed theconsideration for deciding fair and just compensation for the landacquired. It is held that, the sale instances of post notification date are tobe generally ignored unless the evidence is laid to show that there wasno increase in price despite such acquisition. In the case of Special LandAcquisition Officer And Another (supra), the Court again held that theCourt has to compare the sale deeds when the sale instances are of small ( 61 ) FA-1574-2009 + area of land and the area acquired is large piece of land. In the case ofMehrawal Khewaji Trust and State of Maharashtra Vs. Santaram MahaduPingle (supra), the Court considered the sale instances to be of smallerarea and had upheld the deductions while considering the compensationfor larger piece of land. 23.In the case of State of H.P. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Courtconsidered the nature and role of the evidence of the expert witness andthe credibility of such witness. However, the said is in respect of the caseunder Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court need not go into thatcase. It is quite settled that expert witness must be an independentwitness.24.In the case of Lal Chand (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Courtconsidered the utility and the relevance of undervalued sale deeds indetermining market price. It is held that such deeds need to be excludedfrom the consideration being unreliable evidence. This judgment isrelied upon in view of the evidence of Mr. Bajrang Malu who has statedin his evidence that in the sale deed the value shown was lesser than the ( 62 ) FA-1574-2009 + market value. It is held that the Court cannot add fanciful ideas byadding percentage to the value shown in the sale deeds to arrive atrealistic market value. 25.In the case of G.M.I.D.C. And Another (supra), the Division Benchof this Court partly allowed the appeals and the cross objections byenhancing the compensation to Rs. 1720/- per R instead of Rs. 1000/-per R awarded by the learned Reference Court. The interest wasawarded from the date of registration of cross objections. The interestwas awarded under section 34 of the said Act from the date ofnotification under section 4 of the said Act. The Division Bench in viewof the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash ShivaRangari, (2016) 4 ALLMR 513 held that the same can be awarded onlyfrom the date of award. The cross objections were registered after nineyears of the award. It was considered that non filing of cross objectionssuggested that the respondent/land owners were not having anygrievance about the adequacy of the compensation and in that view alsothe interest was directed to be granted from the date of registration of ( 63 ) FA-1574-2009 + cross objections. 26.In the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra), the Court laiddown the factors to be considered while considering the referencesunder section 18 of the said Act. It is considered that the Court has toconsider the references as original proceeding. The determination has tobe made as on the date of publication of notification under section 4 ofthe said Act. The Court has to consider the most comparable saleinstance. The Court needs to consider the proximity from the time angleas well as from the situation. In the case of Union of India Vs. PramodGupta (supra), it is held that the Court also need to take intoconsideration the enormity of the financial implication of enhancementin view of size of the land acquired for the particular project. In the caseof Manilal Shamalbai Patel (supra), it is held that when the saleinstances are of small area and the land acquired is of larger area thendeductions are permissible. Judgments in the case of Radhey Sham andShubh Ram And Others (supra) are on similar lines.27.Coming to the impugned judgment this Court finds that, the ( 64 ) FA-1574-2009 + learned Trial Judge has considered the sale instances prior to the date ofissuance of notification under section 4 of the said Act. The highest saleexemplar was Rs. 2,13,500/- per H for dry land. Considering the saleinstance was one year prior to the date of notification the learnedReference Court has increased the value by 10% per year and consideredthe value to be Rs. 2,34,850/- per H. Though the claimants had claimedcompensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- per Acre based upon the sale deed infavour of Bajrang Malu it rightly considered the valuation based uponthe sale instances. The sale instance in the case of Bajrang Malu was fora small area i.e. only for 20 R of land. Thus, considering overall evidencethe learned Reference Court determined the compensation at the rate ofRs. 4,00,000/- per Acre for dry land, Rs. 6,00,000/- for semi irrigatedland and Rs. 8,00,000/- for irrigated land. So far as trees compensationis concerned, the learned Reference Court has rightly accepted the reportat Exh. 27. So far as evidence of PW-5 is concerned, the Court has rightlyconsidered the same. So far as consideration of nature of the land, itconsidered the evidence on record and has rightly observed that only inL.A.R. No. 925/1999 the land was irrigated land. It is rightly held that ( 65 ) FA-1574-2009 + the claimants in other cases have failed to prove their lands to beirrigated or semi irrigated land. The judgments are rightly considered sofar as determining the rate of compensation. 28.So far as grant of interest under section 34 of the said Act isconcerned, the learned Trial Judge has held the the said interest needsto be paid from the date of taking over of the possession. However, inview of the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas ShivaRangari (supra), this Court holds that it is not permissible to grantinterest under section 34 of the said Act from the date of takingpossession when it is taken prior to the date of notification. Theclaimants would be thus entitled to get the interest only from the date ofaward. To that extent, the appeals filed by the acquiring body deservesto be allowed by modifying the award. So far as rental compensation isconcerned, again this Court finds that, now it is settled that theclaimants will not be entitled to get any rental compensation. The awardneeds to be modified to that extent as well. Considering above, followingorder : ( 66 ) FA-1574-2009 + ORDER(I)The first appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed.(II)The first appeals filed by the acquiring body are partly allowed.The award stands modified only to the extent of interest under section34 of the said Act. The same shall be paid from the date of award andnot from the date of taking over of the possession. (III)The claimants shall not be entitled to receive rental compensation. (IV)If the amount is not paid as per the award by the learnedReference Court, the same be paid to the claimants within six (06)months from today. If the amount is already deposited in the office ofthis Court, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same from theoffice of this Court. (V)With this, the first appeals stand disposed off. (VI)In view of above discussion, Cross Objection No. 19/2026 standsdisposed of. ( 67 ) FA-1574-2009 + (VII)In view of disposal of first appeals, civil applications, if any, alsostand disposed of. (VIII)No order as to costs.( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )P.S.B.