State Of Maha vs Narayan Hari Sonwane on 9 March, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

2026:BHC-AUG:11068

1 35-FAST.18289.2004.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
35 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 18289 OF 2004

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
NARAYAN HARI SONWANE DIED THROUGH LRS
NANDKISHOR NARAYAN SONWANE AND OTHERS

...
AGP for Appellant / State : Mr. D. J. Patil.
...

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 09th March, 2026.

Per Court:

1 This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award

dated 12th January, 2000 passed by the learned Land Reference Court,

District Jalgaon in LAR No.1056 of 1998.

2 The claimant's land was acquired for the purpose of

construction of percolation tank of village Kandari, Tehsil and District

Jalgaon, by notification issued and published under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the said Act) dated 18 th October

1984. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short,

"LAO") on 16th October 1987. The learned Reference Court enhanced

and awarded the compensation @ Rs.45,000/- per hectare for Jirayat

land.
2 35-FAST.18289.2004.odt

3 The State Government has preferred this appeal on the

ground that the amount of compensation is not properly carved out.

He submitted that the same exemplar is of Bhagat / irrigated land,

which was wrongly relied upon. He, therefore, submitted to allow the

appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award.

4 On perusal of the impugned judgment and award

alongwith the evidence, it appears that the learned Reference Court

has treated the claimant's land as Jirayat land. The exemplar at

Exhibit-9 pertains to irrigated land. Considering this aspect, the

learned Reference Court has deducted 55% of the amount from the

said exemplar, as the land covered under Exhibit-9 was irrigated. The

said course adopted by the learned Reference Court appears to be

judicious and legal. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any

illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. The

appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed, as there is no scope for

interference in the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the

following order:

ORDER

The first appeal is dismissed.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga

Legal Document View