Nagorao & Ors. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors.

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.2.The Executive EngineerLatur Minor Irrigation, Latur.… RESPONDENTS_______________________________________________________________Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate forapplicant/applicantsMr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2._______________________________________________________________WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2266 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Yogesh s/o Subhash ShetkarAge-24 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2267 of 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANT 11

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtVERSUS1.Vilas s/o Raghunath NavrangeAge-40 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2268 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Babu s/o Ramling ShetkarAge-60 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2269 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS 12

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1.Chandrashekar s/o Ramlu AyyaAge-45 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2270 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Suryakant s/o Ramlu AyyaAge-45 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2271 of 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Shrihari s/o Hanmant NavrangeAge-54 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist Latur 13

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Satyanarayan s/o Ramlu AyyaAge-50 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2273 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad).. APPELLANTVERSUS1.Mayur s/o Subhash ShetkarAge-22 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS 14

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2274 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Nagnath s/o Hanmant NavrangeAge-60 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS_______________________________________________________________Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. V.B. Patil & Mr. Satish S. Deshmukh, Advocates for respondent no.1._______________________________________________________________WITHX-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 39144 OF 2016IN FA/2273/2013Mayur s/o Subhash ShetkarAge 30 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist. Latur… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTS 15

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHX-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 41987 OF 2017IN FA/2269/2013Chandrashekar s/o Ramlu AyyaAge; Majors, Occu: Agril.,R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 42048 OF 2017IN FA/2270/2013Suryakant s/o Ramlu Ayya,Age; Majors, Occu: Agril.,R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 18614 OF 2020IN FA/2274/2013Nagnath s/o Hanmant NavrangeAge 67 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.… APPLICANT 16

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 51 OF 2022IN FA/2272/2013Satyanarayan s/o Ramlu AyyaAge; Majors, Occu: AgrilR/o Ahmadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur,Dist Latur.… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 168 OF 2024IN FA/2266/2013Yogesh s/o Subhash ShetkarAge 32 years, Occu: AgrilR/o Ahmadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur,Dist Latur.… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTS 17

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 210 OF 2025IN FA/2267/2013Vilas S/o Raghunath NavrangeAge-53 yrs, Occu- AgrilR/o Ahmadpur, Dist Latur… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 211 OF 2025IN FA/2268/2013Babu s/o Ramling Shetkar (Deceased)Through its LRs.1.Kaushlyabai W/o. Baburao ShetkarAge: 71 Years, Occu: Household2.Madhav S/o Baburao ShetkarAge: 41 Years, Occu: Agriculturist3.Ganesh S/o Baburao ShetkarAge: 33 Years, Occu: AgriculturistAll R/o. Bhoi Galli, Ahmedpur,Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur… APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur 18

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 212 OF 2025IN FA/2271/2013Shrihari s/o Hanmant NavrangeAge-66 yrs, Occu- AgrilR/o Ahmadpur, Dist Latur… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… RESPONDENTS_______________________________________________________________Mr. Satish S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicantMr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocates for respondent no.2._______________________________________________________________WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 20111.Habib Isa s/o Habib Mohd. Chaus,Age: 73 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.Hasina Begum w/o Habib Isa Chaus,Age: 53 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o as above. 19

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt3.Habib Azhar s/o Habib Isa Chaus,Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o as above.… APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation,Latur.… RESPONDENTS_______________________________________________________________Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr.V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellantsMr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocates for respondent no.2._______________________________________________________________WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1304 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… APPELLANTVERSUS1.Sujatabai w/o Sheshrao BansodeAge-55 yrs, Occu. Agri & H.H.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur 20

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… APPELLANTVERSUS1.Mehaboob Ahmed s/o Ajimoddin KaziAge-60 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.Mujiboddin s/o Mehaboob Ahmed KaziAge 27 yrs. Occu. Agrir/o as above3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Balaji s/o Narayan Desai (Died)Through LRs.1(1)Smt. Vimalbai w/o Balaji DesaiAge. 55 years Occu. Agril.1(2)Pranali D/o Balaji DesaiAge. 29 years Occu. Agril.1(3)Prasanna s/o Balaji DesaiAge. 35 years Occu. Agril.1(4)Sainath s/o Balaji DesaiAge. 32 years Occu. Agril.R/o. Nanded Taluka and District Nanded 21

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… APPELLANTVERSUS1.Hafizoddin s/o Variroddin KaziAge-60 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Basavraj s/o Shivraj IrphaleAge-33 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.2.Ravishankar s/o Shivraj IrphaleAge 28 yrs. Occu. Agrir/o as above 22

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Kashinath s/o Santram Kambale (Died)Through Legal Representatives.1(1)Smt. Harubai w/o Kashinath KambleAge. 67 years Occu. Agril.1(2)Manoj s/o Kashinath KambleAge. 27 years Occu. Agril.1(3)Santram s/o Kashinath KambleAge. 46 years Occu. Agril.1(4)Umabai w/o Anil GaikwadAge. 40 years Occu. Agril.1(5)Sohambai w/o Dhanaji SuryawanshiAge. 38 years Occu. Agril.1(6)Ramabai w/o Gautam SonkambleAge. 36 years Occu. Agril.1(7)Nitabai w/o Raju KambleAge. 34 years Occu. Agril.1(8)Mangalbai w/o Madhav KambleAge. 32 years Occu. Agril.R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka AhemadpurDistrict Latur 23

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.Vishwanath s/o Santram KambaleAge 66 yrs. Occu. AgriR/o as above… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Latifoddin s/o Ajimoddin Kazi (Died)Through Legal Representatives.1(1)Bilkis Begum w/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 80 years Occu. Agril.1(2)Ajimoddin s/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 53 years Occu. Agril.1(3)Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 44 years Occu. Agril.1(4)Khaja s/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 39 years Occu. Agril.1(5)Durdana Begum w/o Mazhar SayyadAge. 48 years Occu. Agril.1(6)Farzanabegum D/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 56 years Occu. Agril.1(7)Sultanabegum w/o Yunus SayyadAge. 54 years Occu. Agril.1(8)Sameena w/o Laiq FarooqiAge. 40 years Occu. Agril. 24

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1(9)Rijvanbe D/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 38 years Occu. Agril.R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka AhemadpurDistrict Latur2.Ajamoddin s/o Latifoddin KaziAge- 37 yrs. Occu. Agri3.Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died)Through LRs.1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 43 years. Occu. Agril.2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 17 years. Occu. Education.3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 15 years. Occu. Education.4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 13 years. Occu. Education.The applicants No 1/3-C and 1/3-D areThe Minor under Guardian of Natural Motheri.e. Applicant No 1/3-A.All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. AhemadpurDist. Latur4.Khwaja s/o Latifoddin KaziAge-37 yrs, Occu. Agri5.Sayyad Durdana Began w/o MazharAge- 37 yrs, Occu. AgriAll R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur6.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS 25

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… APPELLANTVERSUS1.Machindra s/o Nagorao GaikwadAge-60 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.Shripal s/o Machindra GaikwadAge Major, Occu. Agrir/o as above3.Archana d/o Machindra GaikwadAge Major, Occu. Agrir/o as above4.Mangesh s/o Machindra GaikwadAge Major, Occu. Agrir/o as above5.Sushila w/o Machindra GaikwadAge Major, Occu. Agrir/o as above6.Pratibha d/o Machindra GaikwadAge Major, Occu. Agrir/o as above7.Nagesh s/o Machindra GaikwadAge Major, Occu. Agri8.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS 26

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… APPELLANTVERSUS1.Shrihari s/o Hanmant NavrangeAge-52 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.Narhari s/o Hanmant Navrange (Died)Through LRs.2(1)Smt. Pushpabai w/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 67 years Occu. Agril.2(2)Kiran s/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 47 years Occu. Agril.2(3)Jayant s/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 44 years Occu. Agril.2(4)Rahul s/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 37 years Occu. Agril.2(5)Jyoti w/o Narayan KambleAge. 50 years Occu. Agril.2(6)Anjali w/o Ramesh WaghmareAge. 42 years Occu. Agril.2(7)Megha w/o Siddharth ShelkeAge. 40 years Occu. Agril.R/o. N 2 Cidco AurangabadTaluka and District Aurangabad. 27

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur4.Executive Engineer,Local Division, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1341 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Habib Isa s/o Habib Mohamad ChousAge-69 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.Hasina Begam w/o Habib Isa ChousAge 50 yrs, Occ. Agrir/o as above3.Habib Azhar s/o Habib Isa ChousAge 27 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o as above4.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… APPELLANTVERSUS 28

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtRafiyoddin s/o Vaziroddin Kazi (Died)Through LRs.1/AAnjumbegum w/o Rafiyoddin KaziAge 72 years. Occu. Agril.1/BMukhtar s/o Rafiyoddin KaziAge 55 years. Occu. Agril.1/CSabir s/o Rafiyoddin KaziAge 42 years. Occu. Agril.1/DFaiyaz s/o Rafiyoddin KziAge 40 years. Occu. Agril.1/ETambubee w/o Shiddik PathanAge 52 years. Occu. Agril.1/FKausarbee w/o Anwar SayyadAge 51 years. Occu. Agril.1/GTaslim w/o Sajid PathanAge 48 years. Occu. Service1/HLatifa w/o Jabbar SayyadAge 46 years. Occu. Agril.All R/o Kalegaon Taluka AhemadpurDist. Latur.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2019The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)… APPELLANTVERSUS 29

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1.Sardaroddin s/o Ajamoddin KaziAge-60 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS_______________________________________________________________Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant.Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. G.K. Sontakke and Mr.A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr.V.G. Sakolkar, Advocatesfor the respondent no.1_______________________________________________________________WITHX-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 10772 OF 2019IN FA/1343/2019Sardaroddin s/o Ajamoddin KaziAge-69 yrs, Occu. AgriR/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTS 30

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 91 OF 2022IN FA/1310/20191.Latifoddin s/o Ajimoddin Kazi (Died)Through Legal Representatives.1/1Bilkis Begum w/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 78 years Occu. Agril.1/2Ajimoddin s/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 51 years Occu. Agril.1/3Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died)Through LRs.1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 43 years. Occu. Agril.2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 17 years. Occu. Education.3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 15 years. Occu. Education.4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 13 years. Occu. Education.The applicants No 1/3-C and 1/3-D areThe Minor under Guardian of Natural Motheri.e. Applicant No 1/3-A.All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. AhemadpurDist. Latur1/4Khaja s/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 37 years Occu. Agril.1/5Durdana Begum w/o Mazhar SayyadAge. 46 years Occu. Agril.1/6Farzanabegum D/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 54 years Occu. Agril. 31

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1/7Sultanabegum w/o Yunus SayyadAge. 52 years Occu. Agril.1/8Sameena w/o Laiq FarooqiAge. 38 years Occu. Agril.1/9Rijvanbe D/o Latifoddin KaziAge. 36 years Occu. Agril.All R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka AhemadpurDistrict Latur2.Ajmoddin s/o Latifoddin KaziAge. Major.years. Occ. Agril.3.Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died)Through LRs.1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 43 years. Occu. Agril.2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 17 years. Occu. Education.3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 15 years. Occu. Education.4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin KaziAge. 13 years. Occu. Education.4.Khaja s/o Latifoddin KaziAge. Major.years. Occ. Agril.5.Sayyad Durdana Begum MazharAge. Major.years. Occ. Agril.All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. AhmadpurDist. Latur… APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur 32

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 48 OF 2023IN FA/1342/2019Rafiyoddin s/o Vaziroddin Kazi (Died)Through LRs.1/AAnjumbegum w/o Rafiyoddin KaziAge 72 years. Occu. Agril.1/BMukhtar s/o Rafiyoddin KaziAge 55 years. Occu. Agril.1/CSabir s/o Rafiyoddin KaziAge 42 years. Occu. Agril.1/DFaiyaz s/o Rafiyoddin KziAge 40 years. Occu. Agril.1/ETambubee w/o Shiddik PathanAge 52 years. Occu. Agril.1/FKausarbee w/o Anwar SayyadAge 51 years. Occu. Agril.1/GTaslim w/o Sajid PathanAge 48 years. Occu. Service1/HLatifa w/o Jabbar SayyadAge 46 years. Occu. Agril.All R/o Kalegaon Taluka AhemadpurDist. Latur.… APPLICANTS 33

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 108 OF 2023IN FA/1308/20191.Basavraj s/o Shivraj IrphaleAge: 45 yrs, Occu: Agril.2.Ravishankar s/o Shivraj IrphaleAge: 40 yrs, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.… APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 109 OF 2023IN FA/1309/20191.Kashinath s/o Santram Kambale (Died)Through Legal Representatives. 34

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1(1)Smt. Harubai w/o Kashinath KambleAge. 65 years Occu. Agril.1(2)Manoj s/o Kashinath KambleAge. 25 years Occu. Agril.1(3)Santram s/o Kashinath KambleAge. 45 years Occu. Agril.1(4)Umabai w/o Anil GaikwadAge. 38 years Occu. Agril.1(5)Sohambai w/o Dhanaji SuryawanshiAge. 36 years Occu. Agril.1(6)Ramabai w/o Gautam SonkambleAge. 34 years Occu. Agril.1(7)Nitabai w/o Raju KambleAge. 32 years Occu. Agril.1(8)Mangalbai w/o Madhav KambleAge. 30 years Occu. Agril.2.Vishwanath s/o Santram KambleAge 75 yrs. Occu. AgriR/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist Latur.3.Sopan s/o Santram Kambe (Died)Through LRs.3/1Laxmibai w/o sopan KambleAge 75 years. Occu. Agril.3/2Pandhari s/o sopan KambleAge 53 years. Occu. Agril.3/3Dnyanoba s/o Sopan KambleAge 50 years. Occu. Agril.3/4Vimalbai w/o Uttamrao ShirsagarAge 56 years. Occu. Agril. 35

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt3/5Kamalbai w/o Dayanand KokateAge 47 years. Occu. Agril.All R/ Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist. Latur… APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 110 2023IN FA/1306/20191.Balaji s/o Narayan Desai [Died]Through LRs.1/A.Smt. Vimalbai w/o Balaji DesaiAge 52 years Occu. Agril.1/B.Pranali D/o Balaji DesaiAge 27 years Occu. Education1/C.Prasanna s/o Balaji DesaiAge 33 years Occu. Education.1/D.Sainath s/o Balaji DesaiAge 30 years Occu. EducationAll R/o Nanded Tq. and Dist. Latur… APPLICANTSVERSUS 36

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 111 OF 2023IN FA/1307/2019Hafizoddin s/o Variroddin KaziAge 69 years. Occu. Agri.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 112 OF 2023IN FA/ 1311/20191.Machindra s/o Nagorao GaikwadAge-69 yrs, Occu. Agri2.Sushila w/o Machindra GaikwadAge 40 years. Occu. Agri 37

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt3.Nagesh s/o Machindra GaikwadAge 37 years, Occu. Agri4.Mangesh s/o Machindra GaikwadAge 32 years, Occu. Agri5.Shripal s/o Machindra GaikwadAge 64 years, Occu. Agri6.Pratibha D/o Machindra GaikwadAge 34 years, Occu. Agri7.Archana D/o Machindra GaikwadAge 35 years, Occu. AgriAll R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist Latur.… APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSX-OBJECTION NO. 113 OF 2023IN FA/1305/20191.Mehaboob Ahmed s/o Ajimoddin KaziAge-69 yrs, Occu. Agri2.Mujiboddin s/o Mehaboob Ahmed KaziAge 36 yrs. Occu. AgriBoth R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur… APPLICANTS 38

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 114 OF 2023IN FA/1340/20191.Shrihari s/o Hanmant NavrangeAge 62 years. Occu. Agri.R/o Ahemadpur Tq. AhmadpurDist. Latur2.Narhari s/o Hanmant Navrange (Died)Through LRs.2/1Smt. Pushpabai w/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 65 years Occu. Agril.2/2Kiran s/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 45 years Occu. Agril.2/3Jayant s/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 42 years Occu. Agril.2/4Rahul s/o Narhari NavrangeAge. 35 years Occu. Agril.2/5Jyoti w/o Narayan KambleAge. 48 years Occu. Agril.2/6Anjali w/o Ramesh WaghmareAge. 40 years Occu. Agril. 39

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2/7Megha w/o Siddharth ShelkeAge. 38 years Occu. Agril.All R/o Aurangabad N2 CidcoDist. Aurangabad.… APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough,The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHX-OBJECTION NO. 115 OF 2023IN FA/1304/20191.Sujatabai w/o Sheshrao BansodeAge-65 yrs, Occu. Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur… APPLICANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough, The Dist. Collector Latur2.The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation through,The Executive Engineer, LaturMinor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.3.The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,[Purna Project] Latur… RESPONDENTS 40

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt_______________________________________________________________Mr.G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for applicant/applicantsMr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2._______________________________________________________________WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4216 OF 20171.Manmath Narayan Shetkar (Desai),Through his LRs.1.ALaxmibai Manmath Shetkar (Desai)Age:- 60 years, Occ. H.H.1.BArchana Manmath Shetkar (Desai)Age:- 46 years, Occ. H.H.1.CSatish Manmath Shetkar (Desai)Age:- 42 years, Occ. Business1.DSharan Manmath Shetkar (Desai)Age:- 38 years, Occ. BusinessAll R/o Ahamadpur, Tq. Ahamdpur,Dist. Latur.2.Ravishankar S/o. Narayan Shetkar,Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri.,Both R/o. AhmedpurTq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur.… APPELLANTSVERSUS1.State of MaharashtraThrough : Collector, Latur.2.The Special Land Acquisition OfficerPurna Project, Latur.3.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation, Latur.… RESPONDENTS 41

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt_______________________________________________________________Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for appellant nos.1A to 1D.Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for respondent no.3._______________________________________________________________WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 4363 OF 20161.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)2.The State of Maharashtra throughThe Collector, Latur.3.Special Land Acquisition, PurnaProject, Latur.… APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Manmath s/o Narayan Shetkar (Desai)(Died)Through LRs.1.ALaxmibai Manmath Shetkar (Desai),Age:- 60 years, Occ. H.H,1.B.Archana Manmath Shetkar (Desai),Age:- 46 years, Occ. H.H,1.C.Satish Manmath Shetkar (Desai),Age:- 42 years, Occ. Business,1.D.Sharan Manmath Shetkar (Desai),Age:- 38 years, Occ. Business,All R/o. Ahamadpur, Tq. Ahamdpur,Dist. Latur.… RESPONDENTS 42

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt_______________________________________________________________Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant.Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr.P.P. More, Advocate for respondent nos.1A to 1D._______________________________________________________________WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2324 OF 20181.Sangram S/o Kashinath MahajanAge: 54 Years, Occu: Agril.2.Mahesh S/o Sangram MahajanAge: 21 Years, Occu: Agril.All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2019Baburao S/o Shivling WadkarAge; 59 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTS 43

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2019Smt. Rukminbai W/O Baburao WadkarAge; 54 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2839 OF 2019Ram S/o Trimbakappa Mahajan,Age; 71 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2840 OF 2019Samb s/o Trimbakappa MahajanAge; 57 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTVERSUS 44

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1655 OF 2024Baburao S/o Shivling WadkarAge; 52 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1656 OF 2024Ganesh S/o Manmath WadkarAge; 32 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.… APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTS 45

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2024Motiram S/o Shivling WadkarAge; 49 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.… APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1658 OF 2024Yusufoddin s/o Jamiroddin KaziAge; 49 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.… APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1659 OF 2024Prabhavati W/o Laxman WadjeAge; 44 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANT 46

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur. … RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1660 OF 2024Manmath S/o Madhavrao WadkarAge; 54 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2909 OF 2024Haribai W/o Shankar Mahajan (Dead)Through her LRs.1.Nagnath S/o. Shankarappa MahajanAge: 55 Years, Occu: Agriculture,2.Panchwati W/o. Rajeshwar BondgeAge: 47 Years, Occu: Household,Both R/o. Ahmedpur,Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.3.Chaya W/o. Baswaraj KaranjeAge: 45 Years, Occu: Household, 47

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtR/o. Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2956 OF 20241.Nagesh S/o Kedarnath WadkarAge: 22 Years, Occu: Agri.2.Mahesh Kedarnath WadkarAge: 20 Years, Occu: Agril.3.Shivbas S/o Kedarnath WadkarAge: 18 Years, Occu: Agril.All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.... APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2025Samb S/o. Shivling Wadkar (Dead)Through its LRs1.Mahanandabai W/o. Sambappa WarkadAge: 70 Years, Occu: Household, 48

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtR/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.2.Savita W/o. Shivling UsturgeAge: 53 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.3.Sunita W/o. Lingeshwar NandagavaleAge: 50 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Wadwal (Nagnath), Tq. Chakur,Dist. Latur.4.Kalpana W/o. Trimbak EshwarshetteAge: 47 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Deoni, Tq. Deoni,Dist. Latur.5.Rahul S/o. Sambappa WarkadAge: 42 Years, Occu: Agriculture,R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.6.Shakuntala W/o. Sangmeshwar ThonteAge: 40 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Parali (Vaijnath),Parali (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed.... APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2025Vaijnath S/o. Shivling Wadkar (Dead)Through its LRs 49

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1.Smt. Laxmibai Vaijnath WadkarAge: 70 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.2.Smt. Shobha Vaijnath AkoleAge: 47 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Kalambar,Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.3.Sangameshwar Vaijnath WadkarAge: 54 Years, Occu: Agril.,R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.4.Parvati Sambhaji AshtureAge: 40 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Satala (Waygaon),Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.5.Mahadevi Santosh HusnaleAge: 38 Years, Occu: Household,R/o. Ukadgaon,Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.... APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division,Latur.… RESPONDENTS_______________________________________________________________Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for appellant.Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2._______________________________________________________________ 50

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2289 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Sangram s/o Kashinath MahajanAge-50 yrs, Occ. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.Mahesh s/o Sangram MahajanAge-17 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o as above3.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development CorporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Motiram s/o Shivling WadkarAge-45 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS 51

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2291 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Samb s/o Shivling WadkarAge-60 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Baburao s/o Shivling WadkarAge-55 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS 52

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2293 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Yusufoddin s/o Jamiroddin KaziAge-45 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Nagesh s/o Kedarnath WadkarAge-17 yrs, Occ. Agri2.Mahesh s/o Kedarnath WadkarAge-15 yrs, Occu. Agri3.Shivba s/o Kedarnath WadkarAge-13 yrs, Occu. AgriAll minors U/G of motherSow. Anjanabai w/o Kedarnath WadkarAge-Major yrs, Occu. Householdr/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur 53

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt4.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2295 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Smt. Prabhavati w/o Laxman WadjeAge-40 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2296 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Samb s/o Laxman ShetkarAge-48 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur 54

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2297 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Sow. Rukminibai w/o Baburao WadkarAge-53 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2298 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Samb s/o Trimbakappa MahajanAge-53 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur 55

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2299 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Ganesh s/o Manmath WadkarAge-60 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2300 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Vaijanath s/o Shivling WadkarAge-60 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur 56

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2301 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Ram s/o Trimbakappa MahajanAge-67 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2302 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Smt. Haribai w/o Shankar MahajanAge-58 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS 57

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 2303 OF 2013The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development corporationLtd, Aurangabad)... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Manmath s/o Madhavrao WadkarAge-50 yrs, Occu. Agrir/o Ahmedpur, Tq. AhmedpurDist Latur2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Latur… RESPONDENTS_______________________________________________________________Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant.Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1._______________________________________________________________CORAM:NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ANDVAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ.RESERVED ON:18.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:16.03.2026J U D G M E N T [Per Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, J.] :.Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates forthe parties. 58

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2. (I) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by theReference Court vide judgment and award dated 21.03.2012 in LandAcquisition Reference Nos. 94/2011 (Old No. 56/2008), 95/2011 (OldNo.57/2008), 96/2011 (Old No. 58/2008), 97/2011 (OldNo.59/2008), 98/2011 (Old No. 60/2008), 99/2011 (OldNo.61/2008), 100/2011 (Old No. 62/2008) and 312/2011 (OldNo.158/2008), First Appeal No. 1098/2018 is preferred by the landowner/claimant. And, dissatisfied with enhancing the amount ofcompensation, the acquiring body – Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation (“GMIDC”) has preferred First Appeal Nos.802/2014, 803/2014, 804/2014, 805/2014, 806/2014, 807/2014,808/2014 and 809/2014 against the same references. In seven FirstAppeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the landowners/claimants have preferred X-Objection Nos. 101/2023 in F.A.No. 807/2014, 102/2023 in F.A. No. 806/2014, 103/2023 in F.A. No.805/2014, 104/2023 in F.A. No. 809/2014, 105/2023 in F.A. No.803/2014, 106/2023 in F.A. No. 808/2014 and 61/2024 in F.A. No.804/2014.(II) Dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, theacquiring body – GMIDC has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2266/2013,2267/2013, 2268/2013, 2269/2013, 2270/2013, 2271/2013, 59

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2272/2013, 2273/2013 and 2274/2013 against the judgment andaward dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Reference Court in LandAcquisition Reference Nos. 711/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008,714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008.In the First Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the landowners/claimants have preferred X-Objection (Stamp) No.39144/2016 in F.A. No. 2273/2013, X-Objection (Stamp)No.41987/2017 in F.A. No. 2269/2013, X-Objection (Stamp) No.42048/2017 in F.A. No. 2270/2013, X-Objection (Stamp) No.18614/2020 in F.A. No. 2274/2013, X-Objection Nos. 51/2022 in F.A.No. 2272/2013, 168/2024 in F.A. No. 2266/2013, 210/2025 in F.A.No. 2267/2013, 211/2025 in F.A. No. 2268/2013 and 212/2025 inF.A. No. 2271/2013.(III) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by theReference Court vide judgment and award dated 11.10.2010 in LandAcquisition Reference Nos. 150/2007, 151/2007, 152/2007,153/2007, 154/2007, 155/2007, 156/2007, 171/2007, 51/2008,52/2008, 54/2008 and 55/2008, First Appeal No. 603/2011 ispreferred by the land owner/claimant and dissatisfied with enhancingthe amount of compensation First Appeal Nos. 1304/2019,1305/2019, 1306/2019, 1307/2019, 1308/2019, 1309/2019, 60

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1310/2019, 1311/2019, 1340/2019, 1341/2019, 1342/2019 and1343/2019 are preferred by the acquiring body – GMIDC. In elevenFirst Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the landowners/claimants have preferred X-Objection (Stamp) No.10772/2019in F.A. No. 1343/2019, X-Objection Nos. 91/2022 in F.A. No.1310/2019, 48/2023 in F.A. No. 1342/2019, 108/2023 in F.A. No.1308/2019, 109/2023 in F.A. No. 1309/2019, 110/2023 in F.A. No.1306/2019, 111/2023 in F.A. No. 1307/2019, 112/2023 in F.A. No.1311/2019, 113/2023 in F.A. No. 1305/2019, 114/2023 in F.A. No.1340/2019 and 115/2023 in F.A. No. 1304/2019.(IV) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by theReference Court vide judgment and award dated 02.02.2011 in LandAcquisition Reference No. 884/2008 First Appeal No. 4216/2017 ispreferred by the land owner/claimant. And, dissatisfied withenhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiring body – GMIDChas preferred First Appeal No. 4363/2016 against the same reference.(V)Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by theReference Court vide judgment and award dated 16.12.2011 in LandAcquisition Reference Nos. 695/2008, 696/2008, 697/2008,698/2008, 699/2008, 700/2008, 701/2008, 702/2008, 703/2008, 61

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt705/2008, 706/2008, 707/2008, 708/2008, 709/2008 and 710/2008,the land owners/claimants have preferred First Appeal Nos.2324/2018, 1123/2019, 1409/2019, 2839/2019, 2840/2019,1655/2024, 1656/2024, 1657/2024, 1658/2024, 1659/2024,1660/2024, 2909/2024, 2956/2024, 325/2025 and 326/2025. And,dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiringbody – GMIDC has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2289/2013,2290/2013, 2291/2013, 2292/2013, 2293/2013, 2294/2013,2295/2013, 2296/2013, 2297/2013, 2298/2013, 2299/2013,2300/2013, 2301/2013, 2302/2013 and 2303/2013 against the samereferences.3. In the aforesaid five groups of first appeals, the agriculturallands owned and possessed by the claimants, situated at Ahmedpur,Tal. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur came to be acquired by the StateGovernment for GMIDC, for the construction of “Kalegaon StorageTank, Ahmedpur,” Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. Notifications underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter "the L.A. Act")were published on 03.10.2004, 07.07.2006, 25.02.2006, 07.07.2006and 03.12.2005 in Group Nos. I to V, respectively. 62

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt4. Thus, these five groups of first appeals are being taken uptogether for hearing and decided by this common judgment as thenotifications under Section 4 of the L.A. Act are issuedcontemporaneously and lands of the claimants are acquired for thesame project.5. Learned advocates appearing for the claimants and X-objectorssubmit that the land owners whose lands were acquired for the sameproject i.e. “Kalegaon Storage Tank, Ahmedpur” had filed First AppealNo. 1089 of 2015 (Kiran Ramrao Hivare Vs. The State of Maharashtra& Ors.) with companion matters assailing the awards dated05.02.2008, 06.02.2008 and 05.02.2008 passed by the ReferenceCourt. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Sunil P. Deshmukh andR.G. Avachat) after evaluation of evidence partly allowed the FirstAppeals, by common judgment dated 16.09.2019 (hereinafter referredto as “parity judgment”) and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. ft. for non-agricultural lands and Rs.60/- per sq. ft. forother lands and also modified the award to the extent of grantinginterest from the date of award instead of granting from the date ofpublication of Section 4 notification as awarded by the ReferenceCourt. Learned advocates for the claimants would therefore urge thatsince the claimants have also lost the lands against acquisition for the 63

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtsame project, by issuance of contemporaneous notifications underSection 4, which are in proximity to one another and most importantlythe evidence in both cases being the same, they are entitled to parityin compensation.6.Learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Sakolkar appearing for the claimants,while arguing First Appeal No. 1098/2018 would submit that, underSection 4 of the L.A. Act, notification is required to be published inthree stages firstly it should be published in Official Gazette, secondlyit should be published in two daily newspapers circulated in thelocality and thirdly public notice of such notification is required to begiven at a convenient place of the village of which the lands areproposed to be acquired. And last of the dates of such publication andgiving of such notice shall be considered as the last date of publicationof notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act which is 03.10.2004 inrespect of First Appeal No.1098/2018, wherein the award dated16.10.2006 is challenged. He would submit that this Court whileenhancing the compensation in the parity judgment has considered thesale deeds dated 10.02.2004 in respect of Survey No. 88/1/1 and15.04.2004 in respect of Survey No. 88/1/2 from the villageAhmedpur, which have also been relied on by the present claimants intheir respective references. These sale instances relied by the claimants 64

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtare prior to the date of Section 4 notification dated 03.10.2004. Hewould submit that those sale deeds are executed after takingpermission of the Charity Commissioner, as the lands were sold by wayof tender process and not by auction process as argued by AcquiringBody.He would submit that, in the parity judgment, this Court hasobserved that, the Survey No. 2 is in close proximity with the acquiredlands. Hence, the price range of rates of sale deeds of Survey No. 2 havebeen considered while fixing the compensation of acquired lands. It issubmitted that the same Survey No. 2 is in close proximity with theacquired lands in the present appeals and as the lands were acquired forthe same project, it would be unfair to discriminate between the landowners, to pay more to some and less to others, when the purpose ofacquisition is the same and lands are identical and similar.He would also submit that for the purpose of compensation fortrees, the claimants have adduced evidence of CW-2 Dr. Keshav RamraoPawar at Exhibit 21, which should have been accepted by the ReferenceCourt in its entirety, and the price should have been enhancedaccordingly, instead of giving only 50% rise over the compensationawarded by the SLAO. 65

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtLastly he prayed that compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- persq.ft., be granted for the acquired lands as granted in the parityjudgment and prayed for enhancement in compensation for trees.7. Learned advocates Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Mr. V.B Patil and Mr. S. S.Halkude adopted the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. A. V. Sakolkarand claimed parity and prayed for compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/-per sq. ft.8. All the advocates would submit that the Acquiring Body/State hasnot adduced any evidence before the Reference Court except filing of awritten statement.9. The various judgments relied by learned advocates for theclaimants/X-objectors are discussed hereinbelow :- 10.To point out the factors required to be taken into considerationwhile determining the potentiality of land, learned advocates for theclaimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:1. Collector, Raigarh Vs. Harsing Thakur; AIR 1979 SC 472 2. P. Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority; 1995 DGLS (SC) 148 66

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt11. To substantiate the contention that sale instances relating tosmaller pieces of land can be considered while determiningcompensation for large tracts of land, learned advocates for theclaimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:1. Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar and LandAcquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam;1991 DGLS (SC) 4772. Thakusibhai Devjibhai and Ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujaratand Anr.; 2001 (2) LACC 3193. Executive Engineer (C), MSEB, Nagapur Vs. Uttamrao BapuraoRaut and Ors.; 2009 (6) ALL MR 8274. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb;2011(8-9) SBR 49412. To fortify the submission regarding the applicability of theprinciple of parity and the settled principles governing determination ofcompensation in land acquisition proceedings, learned advocates for theclaimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:1. Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special LAO; 1988 Bom.L.R. (90)2822. Union of India Vs. Bal Ram; 2004 DGLS (SC) 593. Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta and Ors.; AIR 2005 SC 3708(1)4. Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2007 (Supp.)Bom.C.R. 7715. Special LAO Vs. M.K. Rafiq; 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 9 67

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt6. Salaha Begaum Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer; 2012DGLS (SC) 6507. Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra; Civil AppealNo. 5088-5089 of 20138. Dhiraj Singh (D) TR. Vs. Haryana State; MANU/SC/0778/20149. Pehlad Ram Vs. Haryana Urban Authority; 2014 R.C.R. (Civil)(1) 31610. Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. ; Civil Misc. Review No. 1744702 of201511. Madhukanta M. Chinchani and Ors. Vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer and Anr.; 2016 DGLS (SC) 33412. Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu andKashmir; 2017 DGLS (SC) 31613. Narendra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.; 2017DGLS (SC) 92614. Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Vs. The Special Land AcquisitionOfficer and Ors.; MANU/SC/1745/201915. G. Hanumantharao Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,Shimoga; AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 31016. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.;2021 DGLS (SC) 49517. Anil Kumar Soti and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2021DGLS (SC) 80418. State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander ;2023 Scale (2) 58819. Kamlabai Ganeshsingh Parihar Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2023DGLS (Bom) 297320. Priyadarshan Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2024 DGLS(Bom.) 327021. Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; 2025 DGLS(SC) 692 68

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt13. To emphasize the contention that when several sale exemplarsrelating to similar lands are available, the highest bonafide saleexemplar must be considered, learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied on the judgment in Manohar and Ors. Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.; 2025 DGLS (SC) 99814. Learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied onthe judgment in Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, NagpurVs. Laxman Seetaram Neulkar (AIR Online 2020 Bom 1264) to contendthat if the true market value of the land is more than the rate claimedby the landowner, it is the duty of the Court to award just and faircompensation, and compensation can be awarded even more than whatis claimed.15. In support of their contention that no fault can be found in thevaluer's report, learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors haverelied on the judgment in Pandhari Dhondiba Nukulwad Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. (2020 (2) Mh.L.J. 412), wherein it is observedthat objection to a valuation report cannot be taken merely on theground that prior notice was not given by the expert, as the valuer wasengaged by the claimants and there is no requirement in law to issue 69

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtnotice to the government while carrying out valuation of trees througha private valuer.Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in Chindha FakiraPatil Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (AIR 2012 SC481) to contend that expert valuation of fruit-bearing trees ought to beconsidered and should not be rejected in the absence of any evidence tothe contrary.16. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of theappellants, learned Advocate Mr. S. G. Sangle appearing for theacquiring body opposed the appellants’ claim for compensation on thebasis of parity. He would submit that, the rates granted in the parityjudgment cannot be applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case asthe material evidence which formed basis for determination of marketvalue was essentially sale instances from Survey No. 2 whereas in thepresent appeals, the claimants have relied on sale deeds dated10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004 of Survey No. 88/1/2 which are thoughdiscussed in the parity judgment, the price is not fixed on its basis. Thesale deeds have been executed in favour of the family members orpersons known to the claimants. The sale instances were sham,collusive transactions were entered into to jack up prices of lands toinflate market value of acquired land. The sale instances are post 70

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtSection 4 notification as the Section 4 notification was published inofficial gazette on 01.01.2004 and the sale instances are dated10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004. Moreover, the sale instances are a result ofauction sales and auction sales do not furnish a sale guide fordetermination of market value and hence the Reference Court shouldnot have relied on these sale instances.He would submit that acquired lands were purely agricultural,were from no development zone, sale instances relied were essentiallyauction purchase transactions, sale instances are not genuine, lackedbonafides, were commercial transactions, the chronological saletransaction indicates knowledge and not a mere coincidence, hence inview of submissions, appeals filed by the acquiring body be allowed andappeals filed by the claimants be dismissed.17.Learned Government Pleader Mr. A. B. Girase, appearing for theState and learned Advocate Mr. Ram Deshpande appearing for theacquiring body, adopted the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. S. G.Sangle.18. The various judgments relied by learned advocates for theacquiring body/State are discussed hereinbelow :- 71

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt19. To buttress the submission that element of competition in auctionsales renders them unsafe guides for determining the market value,learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State haverelied on the judgment in Karnataka Housing Board Vs. LandAcquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors.; 2011 (2) SCC 246, wherein it is heldthat:“There is therefore every likelihood of auction price beingeither higher or lower than the real market price,depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts arewary of relying upon auction sale transactions when otherregular traditional sale transactions are available whiledetermining the market value of the acquired land. ThisCourt in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State observed that, theelement of competition in auction sales makes them unsafeguides for determining the market value.”Reliance is also placed on the following judgments whichreiterate the same principle :1.Rajkumar & Ors. Vs. Haryana State & Ors.; 2007 (7) SCC 6092.Major Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. Vs. Union of India; 2015 (2) SCC 2623.Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana; 2025 DGLS (SC) 5059 72

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt20. To point out the settled position of law that bona fide saletransactions should be considered while determining the market valueand not got-up sale instances executed with prior knowledge of theproposed acquisition, reliance is placed on the judgment in LandAcquisition Officer, Eluru Vs. Jasti Rohini reported in 1995 (1) SCC717 ,“The reasonable method to determine the market value of the acquired land is on the evidence of transactions of bonafide sales of acquired land, but not on evidence of sales of such land got up having had knowledge of the proposed acquisition, the former would furnish reasonable basis to determine the compensation. In its absence, bonafide sales but not manipulated sales of the lands in the neighborhood possessed of same or similar quality and having the same or similar advantages would give an unerring assurance to the court to determine just and proper compensation. Such sales must not be established as a fact by examining either the vendor or the vendee. Marking of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed. Bonafide sale or series of sales of small pieces of land do not furnish the sole basis to determine market value. Bonafide sales may furnish evidence of the market conditions for consideration. Fixation of market value on the basis of the basic valuation register is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable.”Learned advocates have also relied on the following judgments inwhich the similar principle is reiterated:1. M.V. K. Gundarao Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer,(LAO) ,Narasaraopet ; (1996) 3 SCC 129 73

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2. Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. ; AIR 2011 SC 245821. Controverting the submissions of the claimants, learned advocatesappearing for the acquiring body and the State, have relied on thejudgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,Poona reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, wherein the Hon'ble SupremeCourt has observed that “Only genuine instances have to be taken intoaccount. Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation ofacquisition.”22. The learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and theState have relied on the judgment in Shaji Kuriakose Vs. I.O.C. reportedin 2001 (7) SCC 650, to indicate the factors required to be satisfiedwhile relying upon comparable sale instances for determining themarket value."The factors laid down are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must bein the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired." 74

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt23. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of DollarCompany, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras reported in 1975 (2) SCC730 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:" It is true that compensation for compulsory acquisition, as governed by Section 23, gives high priority to the market value ofthe land at the date of the publication of the notification under S.4, sub-s. (1). But what is market value? It is a common place of this branch of jurisprudence that the main criterion is what a willing purchaser would pay a willing vendor. Ordinarily a party will be entitled to get the amount that he actually and willingly paid for a particular property, provided the transaction be bona fide and entered into with due regard to the prevalent market conditions and is proximate in time to the relevant date under S. 23. We may even say that the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is aparty."24. While opposing the claim of the claimants on the point ofcredibility of evidence, expert evidence and report, the learnedadvocates appearing for the State have relied on the judgment in thecase of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Works, Jalgaon Vs. VitthalDamodar Patil and Anr. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 225 wherein it wasobserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the High Court in thatcase had misapplied the decision in Chindha Fakira Patil. “There is noproper analysis of the oral evidence which has come on record in thepresent case and more so the efficacy of lengthy cross-examination ofthe said witness by the appellant in respect of matters such as hiseligibility, competence and including credibility, reliability and 75

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtadmissibility of the evidence given by him regarding the contents of thevaluation report.”Learned advocates have also relied on the judgment in State ofH.P. Vs. Jai Lal reported in 1999 DGLS (SC) 964 where the Hon’bleSupreme Court has observed :"(17) SECTION 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.(18) AN expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.(19) THE report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in court and has to face cross-examination. This court in the case of Hazi Mohammed Ikramul Haque v. State of West Bengal concurred with the finding of the High court in not placing any reliance upon the evidence of an expert witness on the ground that his evidence was merely an opinion unsupported by any reasons." 76

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtThe same principle has been followed in the case of State ofMaharashtra and Ors. Vs. Bhimdeo Rattu Rathod and Ors. reported in2022 DGLS (Bom.) 345 .25. Learned advocates for the acquiring body and State have reliedupon the judgment in Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta, reported in AIR2005 SC 3708, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed theparameters to be considered while determining the market value ofacquired land for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation,which are reproduced below:"23. While determining the amount of compensation payable inrespect of the lands acquired by the State, indisputably the marketvalue therefor has to be ascertained. There exist different modestherefor.24. The best method, as is well-known, would be the amountwhich a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. Inabsence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may takerecourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissibletherefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed inrespect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/orneighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in absence ofany other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and otherrelevant evidence would have only evidentiary value."Reliance is also placed on Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu andOrs. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram reported in (1980) 1SCC 575 to emphasize that the best evidence of market value is 77

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtafforded by genuine sale transactions relating to the acquired land itself,provided, the authenticity of such transactions is not in doubt.Similar principle governing determination of the market value onthe basis of genuine and comparable sale instances have also beenreiterated in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs.Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reported in (2002) 3 SCC 688 and Stateof Goa Vs. Kissan V. Gaonkar reported in 2005 (2) Goa LR 95 26.To contend that no prudent person would come forward topurchase a vast extent of land on square feet basis, reliance is placed onShakuntalabai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 2SCC 152, wherein it is held :"5. It is seen that the reference court blissfully overlookedthe admission of the owner on the surmise that it is anestimate made by the claimant and the evidence of the saledeeds under Exs. 38 and 44 being prevailing prices, it actedthereon and determined the compensation. The approach ofthe reference court is clearly illegal and that of the HighCourt is quite correct and it was the only way in which themarket value could be determined on the face of theevidence on record. The reference court committed manifesterror in determining the compensation on the basis of sq. ft.When lands of an extent of 20 acres are offered for sale inan open market, no willing and prudent purchaser wouldcome forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft.basis. Therefore, the reference court has to consider thevaluation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudenthypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether 78

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtin given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the landon sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reachthe conclusion. The answer is obviously no. This aspect ofthe matter was totally ignored by the reference court andmechanically accepted the two sale deeds to enhance thecompensation at a value of nearly Rs 35,000 per acre. InState of M.P. v. Shantabhail and V.M. Salgoacar & BrotherLtd. v. Union of India², this Court had accepted the principlethat when the owner himself has purchased the land underacquisition, the consideration mentioned in the sale deedwould form the basis to determine the market value.Though the High Court has relied on the sale deeds underExs. 65 and 66 relating to the lands in Nityanand NagarColony, it is also necessary to go into that aspect of thematter in the view we have stated above."27.On the point that sale instances relating to smaller pieces of landcannot be considered while deciding claims or fixing compensation as tolarge pieces of land, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring bodyand the State have relied on the judgment in the case of Prithvi RajTaneja Vs. The State of M.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1560wherein it is held in Para 6 that, "..... We agree with the High Court that the price paid for smallplots of land cannot provide a safe criterion for determining theamount of compensation for a vast area of land. We may in thiscontext refer to a recent judgment in the case of Smt. PadmaUppal Vs. State of Punjab, C.A. Nos. 2339 and 2403 of 1972, D/-23-8-1976 : (reported in AIR 1977 SCC 580) wherein this Courtobserved that it is well settled that in determining compensationthe value fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to thelands covering a very large area and that the large area of landcannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plotsarea sold." 79

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtSame principle is reiterated in the following judgments :1.Smt. Padma Uppal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.; (1977)1 SCC 3302.The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Digambar BhimashankarTandale and Ors.; 1997 (1) Bom.C.R. 582 3.Karnataka Urban Water supply and Drainage Board, etc. Vs. K.S.Gangadharappa and Another ; 2009 DGLS (SC) 58428. In support of his contention that, it is the duty of the State orfederal government to see that the compensation is just, not merely tothe individual whose property is taken but, to the public which is to payfor it, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the Statehave relied on the judgment in Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector ofMadras reported in 1975 (2) SCC 730 and also on Union of India VsPramod Gupta (D) by LRs and others wherein, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt has observed, “The Courts will also have to take intoconsideration the enormity of the financial implication of enhancementin view of the size of the land acquired for a particular project.”29. The learned advocate appearing for the acquiring body has placedreliance on the following judgments to substantiate the point that SaleDeeds executed post section 4 notification cannot be relied upon:1. A. Natesam Pillai Vs. Sp. Tahasildar, Land Acquisition Tiruchy ;(2010) 9 SCC 118 80

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt2. Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P, & Anr. ; (2013) 16 SCC 39230. While refuting the claim of the claimants on the ground of parity,learned advocates for the acquiring body/State have placed reliance onvarious judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, tohighlight that it has been consistently held by the Courts thatcompensation cannot be determined by mechanically following earlierawards or judgments relating to other lands. Judgments and awards notinter partes are not binding for determination of market value and mayonly constitute as a piece of evidence which can be relied upon only ifthe lands are proved to be comparable in terms of location, potentialityand other relevant advantages. These principles of law are laid down inthe following judgments :In Smt. Padma Uppal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.reported in (1977) 1 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observedas, "The contention of counsel for the appellants that compensationshould have been awarded treating the entire land as potential buildingarea is devoid of substance. It is true that the land in questionconstitutes one block but it cannot be overlooked that the entire areathereof is not similarly situate and does not possess the same or similaradvantages and benefits." 81

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtBasant Kumar & others Vs. Union of India & others, reported in1996(11) SCC 542 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed inpara:"5. Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, The question is: whether the appellants are entitled tothe same compensation as was determined by the High Court in the appeals arising out of Raghubir Singh's came and Chet Ram's case? It has been firmly settled law by beadrole of decisions of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. Thistest should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively, taking in to consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If feats of imagination are allowed to sway he out steps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. We have gone through the record and judgmentsin Chet Ram's case and Raghubir Singh's case decided by the two Division Benches. The learned judges have adopted the principal that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit andthe compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis. The principal is wholly unsustainable in law and cannot be a valid ground for determination of compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes Backward, market value of interior land would less even for samekind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value; it is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this case it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18biswas of land in the village. So, all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always 82

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odton the claimant to prove the market value and the Court should adopt realistic standards and pragmatic approach in evaluation ofthe evidence. No doubt, each individual have different parcels of the land out of that vast land. If that principle is accepted as propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the quality of the land, all will be entitled to the same compensation. That principalis not the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation for all claimants involved in the same notification is not good principal acceptable for the aforestated reasons. When both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc, then only equal compensation is permissible.6. It is then to be seen that the learned judges have furtherpointed Therefore, the principle laid down by the Court in thesaid two cases is obviously illegal and cannot form a legal basis,though these judgments became final, we cannot repeat, onprincipal of parity, same illegality."Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 2018SC (Supp.) 247 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed inpara:"14. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on the decision of Swaran Singh's case, without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision. The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh's case was situated just across the road as observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding. As such it could have been taken into consideration due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was 83

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtthe nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was alsorequired to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bonafide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner without considering the merit. Such determination cannot be said to be binding. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisionsas binding.It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence not beyond that. Court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question.15. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequal's. As per situation of a village, nature of land its value differ from the distance to distance even two to three-kilometer distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting Highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.16. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence at par with comparative sale transactions. The similarityof the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to beproved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to 84

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtbe binding. Such determination has to be out rightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed on the ground of parity an illegality cannot beperpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant."Further reliance is placed on the following judgments whileopposing the claim of parity:1. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai; AIR1960 Bom 782. Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India ; (1997) 8 SCC 1863. Union of India Vs. Ram Phool & Anr.; (2003) 10 SCC 1674. Ranvir Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of India; (2005) 12 SCC 595. Vikrambhai Bhagabhai Patel Vs. Dy. Gen. Manager, ONGC;2021 (20) SCC 5746. Ramrao Shankar Tapase Vs. Maharashtra IndustrialDevelopment Corporation and Others ; (2022) 7 SCC 5637. State of M.P. Vs. Radheshyam and Ors.; 2023 (17) SCC 52831. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learnedadvocates for the respective parties.32. In view of the above, the points that arise for consideration are:A.Whether the claimants are entitled to the enhancedamount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq.ft. as granted in parity Judgment ?B.Whether the claimants prove that they are entitledfor enhancement of compensation for trees, well andstructures? 85

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt33.For the sake of convenience, the details as to the date of Section4 notification, date of award, rate awarded by the SLAO, date ofReference Court judgment, rate awarded by the Reference Court,interest awarded by the Reference Court, survey numbers of acquiredlands, compensation awarded for acquired trees/structures in respectof the acquired lands falling under the judgment and order of thiscourt dated 16.09.2019 and the present appeals, are given in tabularformat as under:IN PARITY JUDGMENT:GroupDate ofSection 4NotificationDate of Awardby SLAORate ofCompensationawarded bySLAO(Per Hectare)Date ofReferenceCourtJudgmentRate ofCompensation awardedby ReferenceCourt(Per SquareFoot)InterestgrantedU/Sec. 28 ofL.A. ActSurveyNos.Rate ofCompensationawarded bythis CourtThe appealspreferred bythe acquiringbody andState werepartlyallowed bymodifyingthe award tothe extent ofgrantinginterestU/Sec. 28 ofthe L.A. Actfrom the dateof awardinstead of,from the dateofpublicationof Section 4notification.I11.02.200705.02.2008Rs. 3,74,000/-30.12.2014Rs. 100/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.257,274,275,202Rs. 75/- persq. ft. fornon-agriculturalusepermissionlands andRs. 60/- persq. ft. forlands otherthan NA usepermission.II07.07.200606.05.2008Rs. 7,40,000/-for NA purposeuse lands andRs. 3,80,000/-for other lands31.12.2014Rs. 115/-AndRs. 100/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.241,242,245,246III11.02.200705.02.2008Rs. 8,00,000/-20.01.2011Rs. 21/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.257,274,275,202 86

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtIN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:GroupDate ofSection 4NotificationDate ofAwardRate awardedby SLAO(Per Hectare)Date ofReferenceCourtJudgmentRate awardedby ReferenceCourt(Per Hectare)Interestgranted U/Sec.28 of L.A. ActSurvey Nos.Compensation in respectof acquired treesI03.10.200416.10.2006Rs.3,28,000/-21.03.2012Rs.16,39,000/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.252,253,255,256,260The claimants areawarded compensation atthe rate of 50 % morethan the compensationawarded by the SLAO forfruit bearing trees, treesand forest trees standingin the acquired land.II07.07.200611.10.2007Rs.3,74,000/-09.02.2012Rs.13,00,000/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.240For want of evidence, noenhancement/additionalamount is awarded to theclaimants in respect ofacquired trees.III25.02.200631.01.2007Rs.3,74,000/-11.10.2010Rs.13,00,000/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.246,247,249,250,251For want of evidence, noenhancement/additionalamount is awarded to theclaimants in respect ofacquired trees.IV07.07.200612.03.2008Rs.3,74,000/-02.02.2011Rs.13,00,000/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.223For want of evidence, noenhancement/additionalamount is awarded to theclaimants in respect ofacquired trees.V03.12.200528.05.2008Rs.3,60,000/-16.12.2011Rs.13,00,000/-From the dateof publicationof Section 4notification.237,238,250,269,270,271For want of evidence, noenhancement/additionalamount is awarded to theclaimants in respect ofacquired trees.WITNESSES EXAMINED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:NAMES OF WITNESSESEXHIBITEXHIBITEXHIBITKiran Hiware - Claimant14----Anil Bodke - Claimant--16--Bharatkumar Reddy – Claimant----20Anil Phulari - Valuer6440824N. G. Patil - Tree Valuer69----Dr. Pradeep Marvale – SLAO72414--Vijay Kumar Patil - Ex. Engineer,75416--Laxman Paikrao - TILR80421--Bharatsing Thakur - Tax Inspector82424-- 87

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtWITNESSES EXAMINED IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:ParticularsGroup I21.03.2012Group II09.02.2012Group III11.10.2010Group IV02.02.2011Group V16.12.2011Name of WitnessesExhibit No.Exhibit No.Exhibit No.Exhibit No.Exhibit No.ClaimantNagorao Digambar KandharkarExhibit 20Suryakant Ramlu AyyaExhibit 12Habib Ajhar s/o Habib Isa ChausExhibit 11Manmath Narayan ShetkarExhibit 19Samb Trimbakappa MahajanExhibit 12Nandkumar Ganpatrao Patil(Agricultural/Horticulture Valuer)------Exhibit 30Exhibit 65---Anil Vaijanath PhulariStructural Valuer---------Exhibit 56---Shivraj Baburao Irphale(To establish market value of acquired land)Exhibit 24------------Keshav Ramrao Pawar(Agricultural/Horticulture Valuer) (Private Valuer)Exhibit 21------------Part plan of sanctioned development plan of Ahmedpur (extended area)SS.N. 237 to 271Exhibit 42Exhibit 44------Exhibit 87Village Map---Exhibit 32------Exhibit 89SALE DEEDS CONSIDERED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:Dates of Sale DeedsSy. No.AreaConsiderationRate per sq.foot Approx.EXHIBITGroup IEXHIBITGroup IIEXHIBITGroup02.08.200086181.25 S.M.3,78,000193/-483210.02.200488/1/163 R.54,32,00080/-191824.05.200486/1150 S.M.4,00,000247/-493329.06.20052/5440 S.F.1,00,000227/-2134 88

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt06.07.20052/2/3300 S.M.3,32,000129/-513622.08.20052/2/390 S.M.1,25,000150/-503701.12.20052/7800 S.F.1,20,000150/-203515.04.200488/1 88/248 R.47,60,00092/-19SALE DEEDS RELIED ON IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:Dates of SaleDeedsSy. No.AreaEXHIBITGroup IEXHIBITGroup IIEXHIBITGroup IIIEXHIBITGroup IVEXHIBITGroup V10.02.200488/1Hissa No. 1/163 R133317157229.03.200488/1 (88/1/2)22 R347315.04.200488/1 (88/1/2)48 R143516147423.07.200488/1Hissa No. 210 R367534. Here, it will be apposite to refer to some of the judgmentswherein, the Court has granted compensation on the basis of parity.In the case of Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,reported in AIR 2003 SC 4382, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has heldthat, “when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court inearlier proceedings and when in one such proceedings this Court hasalready approved the rate fixed, then, in our view the best methodwould be to look at the earlier judgment and awards. Therefore, theHigh Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on thebasis of earlier judgments.” 89

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtIn the case of Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra,reported in, 2007 (2) ALL MR 316, this Court has held that when landsare acquired for the same purpose and are situated in the same villageunder same notification then the appellants are similarly situated to theother claimants who have been granted compensation at enhancedrates. Therefore, the appellants are also entitled for the samecompensation.In the case of Salaha Begum & Ors. Vs. Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, reported in, 2013 (11) SCC 426, the lands were acquired byway of two different notifications but, for the same purpose. The saledeeds relied in both the cases were also the same. Therefore, theHon’ble Supreme Court had held that, “Once the High Courts acceptedthe sale deeds dated 07.01.1993 as the touchstone for determination ofthe compensation payable for identically situated land, there could beno justification for awarding less compensation to the appellants.”In the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J & K,reported in, AIR 2017 SC 1518, it was observed that when acquiredlands are more or less situated nearby, are identical and similar and theland is acquired for the same purpose, even if the acquired lands aresituated in three different villages, it would be unfair to discriminatebetween the land owners and to pay less compensation than what ispaid to the other similarly situated land owners was laid down. 90

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtIn the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs Vs.Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599,the Supreme Court reaffirmed the view in that when appellants are alsosimilarly placed claimants, they are entitled to seek parity and claim thesame amount of fair and compensation as has been awarded to theother land owners.In the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,reported in AIR 2025 SC 2468, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has heldthat irrespective of whether the sale deeds relied upon by the claimantspertain to the same village as the acquired lands, the same set ofexemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages and that,artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot beallowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principles offairness.35. As such, the exposition of law enunciated in the aforesaidauthorities is squarely applicable in the present situation, wherein thelegal position is well settled that where lands situated in the samevillage or nearby areas are acquired under same, prior, orcontemporaneous notifications for the same purpose, the landholderswho are similarly placed are entitled to the same rate of compensation. 91

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt36. The judgments relied upon by the respondents deal with aspectssuch as credibility of evidence, auction sale unreliability, small-plotcomparability for large land compensation, public interest in faircompensation, and limits on parity claims and hence, these decisionshave no application to the facts of the present case. Here, the claimantsonly seek parity with an earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench of thisCourt, relating to lands from the same village acquired for the sameproject.In these circumstances, uniform valuation cannot be deniedmerely on the ground of minor variations in sale exemplars as, suchdenial would result in unjust discrimination. The precedents cited bythe respondents, therefore, do not assist their case and cannot be usedto defeat the claim of the petitioners.37. With regard to the contention of learned advocate forrespondents that the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants cannot beconsidered as those are of post section 4 notification date and that thesale transactions were entered into on the basis of prior knowledge ofthe acquisition proceedings which has resulted in higher price in saledeeds. After careful reading of section 4, it is clear that the last date forSection 4 publication is the date of giving public notice, while passingthe award. Hence, on considering the provision and relevant dates, it isclear that the date of giving public notice/village publication i.e. 92

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt03.10.2004 is the last date and hence, the date of publication of section4 notification in the present case. Also, on careful perusal of thematerial brought on record, it is found that the sale instances relied bythe claimants are a result of tender process and not auctionproceedings. The sale deeds are dated 10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004 i.e.before the date of publication of section 4 notification and hence, canbe relied upon. 38.Thus, the judgments relied on by the advocates for the acquiringbody in regard that, Sale Deeds executed post section 4 notificationcannot be relied upon and that the element of competition in auctionsales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value arenot applicable to the facts of the present case as, the sale deeds reliedon in the present case pertain to the lands which were sold by way oftender process and not by auction process.39. In the parity judgment, the Court has given the reasons for non-acceptance of sale deeds from survey nos. 86 & 88 and reasons forplacing reliance for fixing the market price on the basis of sale deedsfrom survey no. 2 and has also discussed the parity grounds inparagraph nos.126 to 139 which are reproduced below:"126. Sale deeds produced and relied on by theclaimants are in respect of lands survey No. 2,86 and 88. Those are of plots in land within 93

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtmunicipal limits having non agriculture usepermission. The lands under most of the saledeeds were allowed NA use since 1972 to 1986.Lands under sale deeds were better placed andwere better developed. Said lands are forminghub of the city and are developed lands.127. Lands Survey No. 86 and 88 and their subdivisions are very close to Ahmedpur-Latur roadand are either very close to or are almost ingaothan. Land survey No. 2 is situated onnorthern side of Ahmedpur-Amajogai road. MapExhibit-33 depicts that land survey No. 2 isabutting Ahmedpur gaothan and is very close toLatur - Nanded highway. Kalegaon road passesthrough land survey No. 2. Survey No. 2 is incloser proximity to acquired lands as comparedto lands Survey No. 86 and 88.128. In such a case, proper and safer way, as hasbeen considered by the reference courts takinginto account certain Supreme Court judgments,appears to be to arrive at market value of theacquired lands taking cue from the sale deedsof lands in closer proximity to the acquiredlands.129. From the distance point of view, land SurveyNo. 202 is closer to land Survey No.2. In thecircumstances, sale deeds from survey No. 2may serve as indicator and guide. But landsurvey No. 2 is not abutting or adjacent to anyof acquired lands. Acquired land survey No. 202which is comparatively closer to Survey No. 2appears to be separated by quite some distance.Sale deeds from land Survey No. 2 are inrespect of developed area.130. Though latitude will have to be given to thatsome portions from the acquired lands werebeing used for non-agriculture purposes fromquite a few years, yet those were not fullydeveloped lands at the time of acquisition. Noother acquired lands had NA permission nor isthere any evidence about said lands being usedfor NA purpose. Despite NA permissions beinggranted to small portions from acquired landsfrom 1990 onwards up to 1998, no further non- 94

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtagricultural developments have come up in theadjoining areas of acquired lands. Not a singlesale instance from the acquired lands isproduced, either of past or for the period post1998. This gives indication of that nodevelopments worth the name were takingplace and the rate of developments wasextremely slow and tardy. Coupled with thisthere is no material produced in respect ofdevelopments over acquired lands or even overany adjoining lands.131. There is generally paucity of developmentalfacilities for areas at distance from mainlandcity. There is no evidence in respect ofavailability of developmental facilities foracquired lands which are at quite some distancefrom main town.132. This gives indication of that the rates at whichlands plots were sold from survey No. 2 wouldnot be fetched by acquired lands. Prices ofacquired lands, though may be having NApotentiality, would be on downward side fromthose of lands in Survey No. 2. Rates ofacquired lands would be not that of developedlands. Additionally, expenses over developmentsand betterment of the lands would have to betaken into account, as considered by thereference court. The rates would beconsiderably less than the developed lands insurvey No. 2, with deductions for developmentetc.133. The special land acquisition officer had referredto in the evidence that in respect of, inter alia,non-agricultural lands, if sale transactions arein acres, land rates are determined on acreageand if transactions are on square foot basis, rateis determined are per square foot. Lands ofclaimants have non-agricultural potentiality,ready reckoner rates of acquired lands arecontended to be 115/- 175/- and 350/- persquare meter.134. It appears that reference to decision of theSupreme Court in the case of “Special LandAcquisition Officer BTDA, Bagalkot V/s Md. 95

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtHanif” reported in 2002 (4) SBR 273, would bepertinent. In said case compensation given onper square foot basis has been endorsed by theSupreme Court as the lands were within themunicipal limits, while special land acquisitionofficer had given rate on per Acre basis. In thepresent case, there is no serious dispute on thatlands under acquisition are also from municipallimits. There appears to be substance in thecontention of the claimants that evidencesuggests, rates would have to be determined onper square foot basis as the lands borne NApotentiality. Thus, aforesaid judgment can betaken into account. Following said decision, itwould not be improper to considerdetermination of market value of lands onsquare foot basis.………..................................139. Going by the decision in the matter “BayajiTatya Kalunge V/s State of Maharashtra”reported in 2007 (2) ALL MR 316, it may not beimproper as considered by reference court thatif the lands are situated in same village,acquired for same project under samenotification, in that case claimants are entitledto compensation at the same rate on the groundof parity. Since lands acquired are for the sameproject and are being acquired undernotifications issued in close proximity, thereference court had considered that if the landsare acquired for same project under samenotification, same rate can be awarded.40. Taking into consideration the parity judgment and thecomparative charts, we find the following similarities in appeals underconsideration : 96

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt1) Firstly, the lands are acquired for the purpose of the sameproject i.e., construction of Kalegaon Storage Tank.2)Secondly, the Section 4 notifications are issuedcontemporaneously in the years 2004, 2005, 2006 in the presentgroup of first appeals and in the year 2007 in the case of thejudgment & order relied on.3)Thirdly, the lands under acquisition in the present group offirst appeals and those under acquisition in the case of thejudgment relied on, are situated adjacent to each other, in thesame vicinity and extremely in close proximity.4)Fourthly, the evidence in the form of Sale Deeds relied uponby the claimants in the present group of first appeals also formspart of the evidence considered by this Court in the parityjudgment.5) Fifthly, the claimants have produced the map pointing outthat the acquired lands are within the municipal limits ofAhmedpur City. The maps depict locations of lands including thelands under acquisition. The lands of the present claimants aresituated in Survey Nos.237, 238, 250, 269, 270, 271, 240, 246,247, 249, 250, 251, 223, 252, 253, 255, 256, 260 and theacquired lands in the parity judgment are situated in Survey Nos.275, 202, 274, 241, 242, 245, 246, 256 and 257. It appears that 97

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtthe lands are in proximity with each other and some surveynumbers are also common. In the parity judgment it is mentionedthat Survey Nos. 237 to 271 are in the Municipal Council Limits.This letter is not disputed by the State and the acquiring body.Claimants in the present group of first appeals have also produceda letter from the Municipal Council office stating that the SurveyNos. 237 to 271 fall within the Municipal Council Limits.Therefore, it is clear that the acquired lands of the presentclaimants in these groups of First Appeals are situated adjacent toand in the same Gat numbers as the acquired lands in parityjudgment.41.Applying the aforesaid conclusions, the claimants in thepresent group of appeals being similarly placed as the claimants inthe parity judgment, they are entitled for parity in compensation ashas been awarded in the parity Judgment. In the parity judgment while fixing the rate, this Courthas observed that :- "135. The price range of rates of sale deeds of SurveyNo. 2, for the year 2005 appears to be between` 129/-, ` 150/-, ` 150/ and ` 227/- per squarefoot. Average rate for sale deeds of lands inSurvey No. 2 would be ` 164/- per square foot.Survey No. 2 is, as referred to above, adeveloped area. 98

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt136. In the circumstances, rates determined by thereference court in lands references in group Iand II appear to be far steeper in comparison tothe rates of compensation granted to landSurvey No. 202 in group III, which is closer inproximity to land Survey No.2.137. As referred to above, no sale instances could beproduced from the acquired lands or those fromimmediately surrounding. Distance of landsfrom highway and from the developments andgoanthan gives indication of that developments,if any, were extremely tardy. No sales of landsfrom near areas either were taking place orwere not being sold at rate demanded byclaimants. This is indeed a pointer to that landswould not have fetched at all rates expected byclaimants and would be considerably less thanthe lands in Survey No. 2. Coupled with thesame, it would involve expenses overbetterment and developments.138. As such, we consider that reasonably, ratewould have been less than half the average rateof developed area of Survey No. 2 and takinginto account that expenses would have to beincurred for development and betterment ofarea, rates would be hovering around ` 60/-per square foot for non-agriculture use landsand about ` 50/- per square foot for other landsaround 2005. With 10% increase per year, in2007 the rate would have been approximatelyaround ` 75/- per square foot for NA use landsand ` 60/- per square foot for other lands."42.Applying the same rate by adopting the same method, the rate isfixed as follows :- (i) In Group I, the date of Section 4 notification is 03.10.2004.Applying 10% deduction, the rate of compensation for Group I isfixed at Rs.45/- per sq. ft. 99

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt(ii) In Group V, the date of Section 4 notification is 03.12.2005. Therate of compensation for Group V is fixed at Rs.50/- per sq. ft. (iii) In Groups II, III and IV, the dates of Section 4 notification are07.07.2006, 25.02.2006 and 07.07.2006, respectively. Applying10% increase yearly, the rate of compensation for Groups II, III, IVis fixed at Rs.55/- per sq. ft.43.In the parity judgment, the award is modified to the extent ofgranting interest from the date of award on the basis of full benchjudgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangarireported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. Those paragraphs from the parityjudgment are reproduced below:"142. The courts have given along with rate of market value,benefit of 12% p.a. additional component under section23 (1-A) and 30% solatium under section 23 (2) of theLA Act and interest from the date of notification undersection 4, for the first year at the rate of 9% p.a. and forsubsequent years at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date ofpayment to the claimants.143. While the reference courts purport to grant interest onmarket value, additional component and solatium fromthe dates of notification under section 4 of the Act to thedate of actual payment, this particular direction / orderhas been rendered unsustainable in view of declarationof law over this aspect by full bench of this court in the 100

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtdecision on reference reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457:MANU/MH/0557/2016, in the case of “State ofMaharashtra V/s Kailas Shiva Rangari”.144. In said judgment it has been clearly considered thatinterest under section 34 of the Act would start runningfrom the date of possession only if possession is taken inexercise of powers under section 17 of said Act. It hasbeen held that if possession of land under acquisition istaken under section 16 of the Act, then interest would bepayable under section 34 from the date of passing ofaward under section 11 of the Act.145. In the present case, neither the parties have pleaded thatpossession been taken from the claimants was in exerciseof powers under section 17 of the Act, nor it is their casethat procedure thereunder had been followed beforetaking over the possession. So far as interest isconcerned, the area would be governed by the full benchdecision (supra).146. In the circumstances, direction / order of the referencecourts to pay interest from the date of notification undersection 4 of the Act appears to be incompatible withdecision of full bench (supra) and that will have to bealtered and brought in tune with said decision."44.In these appeals also, in Group Nos. I, II, III, IV, V, the interest isgranted from the date of Section 4 Notification. In Group Nos. II andV, interest under Section 34 is awarded from the date of possessiontill the payment of compensation granted by the SLAO. In all these 101

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtappeals, statutory interest of 9% be granted for the first year from thedate of passing of award and 15% till date of realisation of thepayment. Similarly, the claimants will not be entitled to interestunder section 34 as the claimants had not brought any evidenceshowing that the possession was taken by following procedure laiddown under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 as observedin paragraph nos.144 and 145 (supra). The point No. A is answeredaccordingly.As to Point No. B:-45.The land acquisition references challenged in the parity judgmentwere not having any fruit bearing trees. Hence, the point forconsideration was not framed in that regard. However, in the presentappeals, the compensation is granted to the fruit bearing trees, hencethe additional point is framed.46.In group No. I in First Appeal No.1098/2018 arising out of L.A.R.No.96/2011 and X-Objection No.104/2023 in First Appeal No.809/2014 arising out of L.A.R. No.95/2011, valuer Keshav RamraoPawar was examined by claimant. While deciding the price of the trees,it was necessary for the valuer to mention height, condition, width andspread of trees. The valuation made should have been supported by the 102

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtmarket rates of fruits by Agriculture and Horticulture Department ofGovernment of Maharashtra or Agricultural Produce Market Committee.But such an exercise is not carried out by the expert valuer. The valueradmitted that he did valuation on 24.10.2007 but prepared the reportmuch later i.e. on 01.12.2007. Valuer has not mentioned in his report asto how much land is occupied by the trees so that it could have beendeducted while giving the compensation for land.He has not prepared any Panchanama while preparing thevaluation report. After discussing the valuer’s evidence, the ReferenceCourt found that the price awarded by valuer is excessive and priceawarded by the SLAO is meagre. After observing this, the ReferenceCourt without there being any evidence has abruptly come to theconclusion that it will be appropriate to enhance the trees compensationby 50% of the price awarded by the SLAO. There is no reason given bythe Reference Court to enhance the compensation awarded by theSLAO. The compensation is enhanced only on guess work without therebeing any cogent evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that therecannot be any enhancement due to lack of evidence.47.In group Nos. II and V, the reference Court has refused to enhancethe compensation of trees, well and structures by holding that whilepassing the award, the SLAO has considered the valuation by the 103

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odtDistrict Superintendent Agricultural Officer and valuation done by theExecutive Engineer, Latur. Whereas, in reference the claimant has notplaced any valuation done by expert or placed any evidence regardingvaluation of trees, well and structures, stone bund. Therefore, for wantof evidence, the Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance thecompensation granted by SLAO. No interference is called in the saidobservation made by the Reference Court.48.In group III and IV, in First Appeal No.4216/2017 by claimant inL.A.R. No.889/2008, Valuer Nandkumar Ganpatrao Patil was examinedbut Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance the compensation oftrees as there was long gap in preparation of valuation report andactual valuation carried on. Valuation was done on 07.07.2006 whereasreport was prepared on 11.07.2010 that is almost after gap of 4 years.Valuer has not mentioned in his report what income the claimant wasgetting from the fruit bearing trees he had planted and from the treeswhich grew in his land naturally i.e. from the forest trees. Hence, forlack of evidence the Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance thecompensation for trees by SLAO and no interference is called for in thesaid observations. The point No. B is answered accordingly. 104

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt49.The statutory interest is maintained as it is, as is granted in theparity judgment in paragraph nos.154 and 155, which are reproducedbelow:-"154.In view of forgoing discussion and reasons, itwould be appropriate to consider that the acquiredlands would have fetched market value of aboutRs.75/- per square foot for NA use permitted landsand Rs.60/- per square foot for the other lands. Thedecision of the reference courts in respect of benefitsof provisions of the Act, viz; section 23 (1-A), 23 (2)as referred to above, is not being disturbed. The dateof notification in village being the last, as reckoned byreference court would be considered for calculations.155. The direction under references or awards topay interest from the date of notification undersection 4 of the LA Act, stands altered and modified.Interest under provisions of the LA Act would berequired to be paid from the date of passing of theaward under section 11 of the LA Act, in tune withdecision of full bench reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J.457: MANU/MH/0557/2016. The authorities wouldbe liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for one year fromthe date of award under section 11 on thecomponents of compensation referred to undersection 23, including 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) of the Actand @ 15% p.a. subsequent to one year from the dateof award under section 11 till actual payment."50.In the result, we pass the following order :- O R D E R(i)Appeals by claimants are partly allowed.(ii)X-Objections by the claimants are partly allowed.(iii)Appeals by acquiring body are partly allowed. 105

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt(iv)Judgments and Awards of the Reference Court challenged in allthe groups stand altered and modified as under :-(a)Compensation be paid to claimants for their lands @Rs.45/- per sq. ft. in Group I, Rs.50/- per sq. ft. in Group Vand Rs.55/- per sq. ft. in Group II, III and IV. (b)Claimants be paid, in addition to aforesaid, an amountcalculated at the rate of 12% p.a. for the period commencingfrom date of section 4 notification in respect of their acquiredlands to the date of award by Collector as provided undersection 23(1-A) of the LA Act.(c)Claimants would also be paid solatium pursuant tosection 23(2) of the LA Act.(d)Interest be paid on the compensation in accordancewith full bench judgment viz; 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457:MANU/MH/0557/2016, in the case of `State of MaharashtraVs. Kailas Shiva Rangari” from the date of award @ 9% p.a.for first year and @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years tillpayment of amount.(e)It is made clear that the claimants shall not be entitledfor the amount of interest for the period of delay caused infiling the first appeals and cross objections, which arecondoned by this Court, on the said condition. (f)The award amount was deposited by the acquiringbody either in the High Court or in the Trial Court and theclaimants were permitted to withdraw the said amount. Theclaimants will be entitled to withdraw the remaining amountalong with accrued interest. (g)Acquiring Body shall deposit the amount of compensation within six (6) months from the date of uploading of this order. 106

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt(h)Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the Claimantsstands revoked. (i)The claimants are required to pay the deficit court fees,if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation. If thedeficit court fee is not paid by the claimants/X-objectors, thenthe same shall be recovered/deducted from the enhancedcompensation amount.(vii)All Appeals and X-Objections are disposed of accordingly.(viii)Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.[VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]sga/ 107