Bombay High Court
Navnath Nivarti Ghute And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22450
FA-2098-2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2098 OF 2022
1. Navnath Nivarti Ghute,
Age : 60 years, Occupation Agriculture,
2. Shivaji Nivarti Ghute,
Age : 58 years, Occupation Agriculture,
3. Nanasaheb Nivarti Ghute,
Age : 55 years, Occupation Agriculture,
4. Angad Nivarti Ghute,
Age : 44 years, Occupation Agriculture,
All r/o Village Ekurga,
Taluka and District Latur. ... Appellants
[Orig. Claimants]
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the collector, Latur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Latur. ... Respondents.
.....
Mr. Gopal D. Kale, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. S. S. Dande, APP for Respondents.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 13.08.2025
Pronounced on : 19.08.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Original claimants, who instituted Land Acquisition Reference
No. 930 of 1990 along with two other References filed by other
FA-2098-2022
agriculturists, are hereby taking exception to the judgment and order
dated 16.04.2011 passed by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior
Division, Latur (Reference Court) in the above References by which
claim for enhancement of compensation has been dismissed with
costs.
2. Facts giving rise to Land Acquisition Reference, in brief are that,
acquiring body initiated proceedings under both, Sections 4 and 6 of
Land Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act"), for acquiring land for
public purpose, i.e. for extension of gaothan. Along with the lands of
other claimants in Gat Nos. 68 and 477 respectively, present
appellants-claimants' land in gat no. 67 ad-measuring 40 Ares too
came to be acquired and Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,010/-; Rs.9,240/-,
Rs.7,893/- respectively for the above lands.
3. Dissatisfied by the quantum, Land References under Section 18
of the Act were pressed into service alleging inadequate compensation
and seeking its enhancement. Respondent Government authorities
contested the References and on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, learned Reference Court did not find any fault
in the compensation granted by the SLAO and thereby dismissed
FA-2098-2022
References for enhancement. Precisely aggrieved by the same,
original claimants in LAR No. 930 of 1990 have preferred instant
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is
no dispute that land was acquired for extension of gaothan, however,
according to him, respondent authorities i.e. SLAO as well as
Reference Court failed to consider and appreciate the market value
for the lands acquired, prevailing at that point of time. Secondly, sale
instance Exhibit 22, which ought to have been considered as the base
and foundation for arriving at the figure of market value, has not
been appreciated. He would further point out that, the sale instance
was of the village which was just adjoining and abutting to the village
from where lands are acquired. Thus, according to him, there is
erroneous approach in computing entitlement of compensation and
learned trial court has also failed to consider and appreciate the same
and has thereby erred in holding the quantum of compensation
awarded to be just and proper. Hence he seeks indulgence.
5. Per contra, learned APP for respondents, who supported the
impugned order, would submit that, claimants had miserably failed to
make out a case that the compensation awarded was inadequate or
FA-2098-2022
insufficient. That, no cogent and legally acceptable evidence was
adduced by the claimants before the Reference Court to substantiate
their claim for entitlement of enhancement. Learned APP took this
Court through the evidence of CW-1 Navnath, who led evidence on
behalf of all claimants, and more particularly attention of this Court is
invited to the cross wherein there are vital admissions. Lastly he
submitted that, claimants failed to make out a case for entitlement of
enhancement and therefore he urges to not to disturb the findings
and conclusion reached at by learned Reference Court.
6. After hearing above submissions and on going through the
papers, it is emerging and also there is no dispute that, appellants'
land bearing gat no. 67 and other claimants' land gat nos. 68 and 477
of village Ekurga, Taluka and District Latur came to be acquired for
extension of gaothan. It seems that after initiating proceedings under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, acquiring body declared compensation for
each of the above gat numbers. According to claimants, such
compensation was grossly inadequate. Existing rate of land per acre
was around Rs.40,000/-. There was comparative sale instance Exhibit
22. The village had huge potential and land was also of black soil and
very fertile and capable of fetching good agricultural income. Land
was irrigated also, but all such crucial aspects are not considered and
FA-2098-2022
appreciated and hence they knocked doors of the Reference Court for
enhancement.
7. On going through the evidence adduced by CW-1-claimant on
behalf all, through LAR No. 930, following was the documentary
evidence :
a. Copy of award and E-statement at Exhibits 20, 21, 28 and
29 respectively.
b. Sale deed dated 21.08.1979 filed for sale instance, at
Exhibit 22.
c. The 7/12 extracts of the lands acquired.
d. Tabular details of transactions of sale which have taken
place during the period from 1980 to 1987, at Exhibit 33.
Apart from above, Claimant Navnath has examined himself at
Exhibit 18.
8. There is also no issue that, for fixation of marked value, trend is
to take recourse to comparable sale instance, if any. Again, it is fairly
settled position that primary and fundamental burden is on the
claimants to prove that they are recipients of inadequate and
insufficient compensation and are rather entitled to enhanced
compensation. Keeping above requirements in mind, above discussed
FA-2098-2022
evidence is put to scrutiny. In view of the above reflected assertions of
claimants, that their land was fertile and had high potential and was
capable of fetching high yield and thus high income, i.e. to the tune of
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per year, unfortunately no cogent or
reliable evidence, either oral or documentary, was placed before
learned trial court. When claimants had come with a specific case
about land having potential to fetch above quantum of income, it was
expected of them to adduce supportive evidence, but the same is
missing and as such, except bare assertions, there is no evidence in
any form even to assume or presume that the property acquired was
fertile and was of good quality soil and had potential to give
handsome yield and income.
9. Learned APP has invited attention of this Court to the cross of
CW1 Navnath which is at Exhibit 18, wherein he has candidly
answered that they have not harvested "bagayati crop". No supportive
evidence is placed regarding source of water in the form of well to
hold the land to be irrigated one. Resultantly, only choice left with
trial court was to brand the land to be dry one.
10. As regards to assertion of high potentiality of the land is
concerned, no evidence is brought before the trial court to show that
FA-2098-2022
the acquired land was in proximity to any developed or developing
part in the adjoining area, so as to consider the same as a base for
accepting case of high potential. Exhibit 22, which was placed before
the Reference Court and is also pointed out before this Court, is of
village Dhakni and there is nothing to show that appellants' village
Ekurga and Dhakni are adjoining to each other and rather said sale
instance is of 1979 whereas acquisition of lands of appellants is of
1987 i.e. there is difference of more than eight years between year of
sale instance and year of acquisition. Consequently, Exhibit 22 cannot
be made comparative sale instance. Resultantly, the said sale instance
also cannot be said to be comparative so as to rely. Inability of
Navnath to even state about any sale instances pertaining to other
agricultural lands around their village, contributes to the weakness of
evidence. Rather Exhibit 33 is a chart reflecting transactions of village
since 1980 to 1987.
11. Perused the award passed by the SLAO as well as the impugned
judgment. This Court finds no fault in the manner of computation and
entitlement of compensation in the light of quality of the land as well
as in the light of quality of evidence adduced by the claimants.
Apparently, claimants have failed to establish that they are recipients
of insufficient or inadequate compensation and further failed to
FA-2098-2022
demonstrate that they are entitled for enhanced rate of compensation.
As no patent perversity is brought to the notice of this Court, and no
case for indulgence being made out on merits, this Court is not
inclined to grant the prayers. Hence the following order :
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
