FA-699-2017(corrected).doc v. The State Of Maharashtra And OrsWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5001 OF 2017

904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docJabbar Sayyadlal Sayyad And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5087 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSSubhash Narshing Kamble And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5082 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSSayyed Ismail Sayyed Lal And Ors WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1770 OF 2016Sangram Ramrao BhalkeVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2016Ramesh Sopan Mogale And AnrVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2016Uttam Panditrao Patil And AnrVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2031 OF 2016Deelip Ramrao Patil And AnotherVERSUSThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 2 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5072 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSSikandar Bapurao Holkar WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5076 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSNagnath Sambhaji Bhalke WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5084 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSChandrkant Raghunath Jadhav (died) Thr Lrs Sulochanabai And Ors WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5089 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSAfsarbi Sayyadlal Sayyed (died) Thr Lrs Malanbee And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5000 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSRamesh Sopan Mogale And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5073 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 3 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docDaivshala Sriram Tapshalkar WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2016Hansraj Sopan Kamble Died Thr Lrs Panchasheela And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2017Nagnath Sambhaji BhalkeVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5088 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSSayyed Habib Sayyed Lal WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2016Gangadhar Bhaurao Jadhav And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2017Pralahd Ganpatrao Biradar Died Thr Lrs Muktabai And OrsVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1773 OF 2016Nagnath Sambhjaji Bhalke And OthersVERSUSThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 4 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4994 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSSangram Ramrao Bhalke WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5080 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSSadanand Shamrao Valakatte WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2016Govind Gunwant Bhalke And AnrVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5074 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSBapurao Narayan Holkar (died) Thr Lrs Awadabai And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1765 OF 2016Sambhaji Ganpatrao KambleVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4999 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 5 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docMadhav Gurunath Bhalke And Ors WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4992 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSMadhukar Sopan Gaikwad WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1772 OF 2016Rasikabai Srirang Kamble And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2498 OF 2022 IN FA/2033/2016Venkatrao Namdeorao Kasle And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4995 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSGovind Gunwant Bhalke And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4993 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSMegha Pralhadrao Biradar WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4996 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 6 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docVERSUSNagnath Sambhaji Bhalke And Ors WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4991 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSPralhad Ganpatrao Biradar And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4997 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSJaiprakash Sanganna Mogale WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4998 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSSambhaji Ganpatrao Kamble WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1775 OF 2016Madhav Gurunath Bhalke And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5081 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsVERSUSDeelip Ramrao Patil And Anr WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 5085 OF 2017Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And OrsThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 7 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docVERSUSVenkiatrao Namdeorao Kasle And Ors WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2030 OF 2016Subhash Narsing Kamble And AnotherVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2033 OF 2016Venkatrao Namdeorao Kasle And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2034 OF 2016Chandrakant Raghunath Jadhav Since Deceased Thr Lrs SulochanabaiChandrakant Jadhav And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2036 OF 2016Sikandar Bapurao HolkarVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2037 OF 2016Afsarbi Sayyadlal Sayyed Since Deceased Through Lrs Malanbee KhadarsabJamadar And AnrVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2038 OF 2016This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 8 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docJabbar Sayyadlal Sayyad And Khajalal Minor U/g Mother MarembeeSayyadlal SayyadVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2035 OF 2016Bapurao Narayan Holkar Since Deceased Thr His Lrs Awadabai And AnotherVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others...Mr. Ashwin S. Sakolkar a/w H. B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar forthe Appellants. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State.Mr. B. R. Surwase for the acquiring body.….CORAM :SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE :10 JULY 2026P. C.:1.Admit.2.As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2008, heard finally withthe consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.3.In all these Appeals, the Appellants-original claimants are aggrievedby the judgment and award dated 4th August 2015, passed by learned Jt.Civil Judge Senior Division, Udgir in several LARs, whereby enhancedcompensation came to be granted.4.The lands of the claimants were acquired for construction of KarkheliStorage Tank, Lohara. The possession was taken on 4th April 2007 and 17thOctober 2007. The notification under Section 4 was published on 27th AprilThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 9 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).doc2007. The award was made on 17th June 2008 and the Petitioner came toknow about the award on 23rd June 2008. The LAO granted compensation@Rs.2,20,000/-, Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.4,40,00/- per hector for dry lands,seasonally irrigated lands and irrigated lands respectively.5.Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar a/w Mr. H. B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. VijaySakolkar, learned counsel for the claimants submit that the LAO grantedinadequate compensation against which the claimants preferred referenceswherein the quantum of compensation came to be enhanced by relying uponsale instances at Exhs.16 to 18. The learned Reference Court erroneouslydeducted 50% from the sale consideration of sale instance at Exh.16 whiledetermining market value of the lands acquired. He further submits thatsuch excessive deduction is unjust. He contends that the LAO grantedmeager compensation for the trees. The claimants have proved valuer’sreport but the Reference Court failed to enhance the compensation as perthe market value stated in those reports. Therefore, he submits that theclaimants have made out a case for further enhancement in the presentAppeals. Hence, he prays to allow the Appeals filed by the claimants anddismiss the Appeals filed by the acquiring body. 6.Mr. Surwase appears for the acquiring body in some matters. Despiteservice, none appears for the acquiring body in other matters. Upon request,Mr. Surwase appears in other matters on behalf of the acquiring body. This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 10 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).doc7.Mr. Surwase, learned counsel appearing for the acquiring bodysubmits that LAO while determining compensation has already referred inall 35 sale instances between the period from 7th January 2005 to 8th March2007. He further submits that only one claimant has stepped into witnessbox and rest of the claimants have not proved their case for enhancement asto whether acquired lands were dry, semi irrigated or irrigated and thelearned Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation onthe basis of sole testimony of one claimant. He therefore, prays to dismissthe Appeals filed by the claimants and allow the Appeals filed by theacquiring body.8.I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gonethrough record. The claimants had relied upon the sale instance belowExh.16 which discloses that the southern boundary of the land therein isabutting the Renapur road and thus it has facility of road frontage and easyaccess. Thus, the land in said sale instance fetches higher value, whereas thelands acquired do not have such facility which reduces its value. Therefore,the learned Reference Court reduced 50% from the value of saleconsideration of the land in the said sale instance. But while applying suchdeduction, the learned Reference Court has not given any criteria for suchdeduction. It has failed to give reason for arriving at deduction of 50% fromthe value of the sale consideration only upon guesswork. In my opinion, theThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 11 of 12 904-FA-699-2017(corrected).docdeduction of 50% is excessive and impugned award warrant interference tothat extent. Thus, I am inclined to partly allow the present Appeals therebyapplying deduction of 20% in the sale consideration of the sale instancebelow Exh.16. Hence, I pass the following order:-O R D E Ri.The Appeals filed by the claimants are partly allowed ii.The Appeals filed by the acquiring body are also partly allowed.iii.The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,48,000/-,Rs.15,72,960/-, Rs.20,97,280/- per hector for dry lands, seasonalirrigated lands and irrigated lands respectively. iv.The claimants are entitled to statutory benefits and interest underSections 28 and 34 strictly in accordance with Full Benchjudgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash ShivaRangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457).v.Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court standsconfirmed.vi.Award be drawn up accordingly.vii.Deficit Court fee be paid.9.Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 5th August 2026.Shubham Page 12 of 12