[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sk. Majid Sk. Ahmadh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:34054
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1280 OF 2016
Executive Engineer,
Hivra Medium Project Jalgaon. ... Appellant
(Orig. Respondent No. 2)
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Jalgaon.
2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Aurangabad
3) Sk. Majid S/o Sk. Ahmed
Age - 40 Years, Occupation - Agriculture.
R/o Gondgaon, Tq. Soygaon, ... Respondents
Dist - Aurangabad. (Original Appellants)
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1876 OF 2017
1) Sk Majid s/o Sk Ahmadh
Age:56 yrs, Occu: Agril, R/o:Gond Gaon
Tq:Soygaon & Dist: Aurangabad. ... Appellant
(Orig. Petitioners)
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Aurangabad Dist: Aurangabad.
2) Executive Engineer Hivra Medium Project
Jalgaon Dist: Jalgaon. ... Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
.....
Ms. Sunita D. Shelke, Advocate h/f. Shri. D. R. Shelke, Advocate for the
Appellant in FA No.1280/2016
Shri. S. K. Adkine, Advocate for the Appellant in FA No.1876/2017
Ms. A. S. Deshmukh, AGP for the Respondent - State.
.....
2
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 01, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 08, 2025
FINAL ORDER :-
. Both these Appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act') against the
Judgment and Award dated 19.11.2012, passed by the learned 4 th Jt.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in LAR No.514/1997. First
Appeal No.1280 of 2016 is filed by the Acquiring Body and First Appeal
No.1876 of 2017 is filed by the Original Claimant.
2. Undisputed factual matrix of the matters are as under : -
2.1. The Claimant's land bearing Gat No.19/1, admeasuring 52 Are
situated at Gondgaon, Tal. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad came to be
acquired for construction of Hivra Medium Project. The Notification
under Section 4 of the LA Act was published in the Government Gazette
on 08.10.1992. The SLAO granted the rate of Rs.340/- per Are for the
acquired land. The SLAO also awarded the compensation for Water Tank
and Pipeline. The Claimant being not satisfied with the compensation
determined by the SLAO, preferred the above referred LAR and claimed
the compensation @ Rs.975/- per Are and compensation for Well, House
and Bor trees. The learned Reference Court by the impugned Judgment
and Award granted compensation for Well and House with statutory
benefits by partly allowing the claim.
3
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Claimant, the learned
Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the State.
Perused the Record.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimant that, the
claim for enhanced compensation towards the land is not granted by the
learned Reference Court. He submitted that, the Claimant had led the
evidence in support of his claim for enhanced compensation before the
learned Reference Court. He submitted that, claim for enhanced
compensation be granted and the impugned Award be accordingly
modified.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body
that, the interest awarded by the learned Reference Court in the
impugned Award is from the date of taking possession of the land which
is inconsistent with the Judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 AIR (Bom.) 141 and the same be
modified from the date of Award under Section 11 of the LA Act.
6. As regards the compensation for acquired land is concerned,
the Claimant had relied on the sale instance of January-1993.
The Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was published in the
village on 20.11.1992. The learned Reference Court in paragraph nos.16
and 17 observed as follows:
4
"16. At the outset, while considering the claim of
enhancement of compensation, it is necessary to mention
that, sale instance on which claimant is relying is dated
4.1.1993. As per copy of Award on record, notification under
section 4, was published in the village Gondegaon on
20.11.1992. The sale instance is of 4.1.1993. This sale
instance is after the publication of notification of the
acquisition under section 4 of the said Act. The said
publication is by way of village proclamation in the village
Gondegaon. Thus, sale instance which is after the date of
proclamation of acquisition, can not be considered, for the
sake of ascertaining price of the acquired land.
17. SLAO in his Award under the heading, "valuation of
the land under acquisition', has considered various sale
instances, and accordingly, grouped the lands in various
groups. The lands of village Gondegaon, are assessed falling
under group I and had valued @ Rs.340/- per Aar. Claimant
has not produced evidence to show that, prior to notification
under section 4, prices of the land of village Gondegaon,
were more than Rs.340/- per Aar. SLAO has considered 10
sale instances of village Gondegaon, and accordingly,
concluded that, price of the land was Rs.340/- per Aar. This
price arrived by SLAO of the acquired land, is just and proper.
More particularly, when there is no evidence on part of the
claimant, about an sale instances, which are prior to the date
of notification under section 4."
7. The Cross-examination of the Claimant show that, his
village was 45 kms away from Soygaon and area was hilly. The
aforesaid observations of the learned Reference Court are in consonance
with the evidence available on record. Therefore, no interference is
called for in respect of the compensation for land.
8. As regards the compensation towards the Bor trees is concerned,
the learned Reference Court in paragraph nos.21 and 22 of the
impugned Judgment and Award has observed thus :
"21. As stated above, the Award is silent about existence of
trees in the acquired land. The entire file of the proceeding of
acquisition of Hivra Medium Project, is before me. If this file is
5
perused, there is measurement map dated 10.9.1991 of the
Surveyor Hamid Hussain (PW.3). This measurement map is
drawn at the time of joint measurement. If this map is
perused, in the acquired land of claimant, there is a water
tank, house, and well only. The acquired portion of the land is
shown in red colour ink. Nowhere in the measurement map,
existence of trees are shown.
22. In view of this measurement map, evidence of Hamid
Hussain (PW.3), in chief examination, is relevant. He testified
that, on 10.9.1991, he had carried out measurement, and
found water tank, house, three lemon trees and Babool trees,
in the acquired land. This Surveyor has nowhere testified that,
there were 10 Bor trees in the acquired land. From all this
evidence, when more particularly, considering entire file of
SLAO. existence of 10 Bor trees, and its inspection by an
expert, is not probable. From the file of SLAO and from the
evidence of Hamid Hussain (PW.3). Surveyor, there were no
Bor trees in the acquired land, and claimant is not entitled for
any type of compensation for such Bor trees."
9. Nothing is shown as to how the said observations are contrary to
the evidence on record. The observations being in consonance with the
evidence on record, calls for no interference.
10. As regards the compensation for House and Well is concerned,
following are the observations in paragraph nos.24 and 25 from the
impugned Judgment and Award which read as under :
"24. For the purpose of valuation of the house and well,
claimant has examined Dattatraya (PW.2), who is
Consulting Engineer and Valuer. According to him, on
15.3.1990, he had visited the acquired land of the
claimant, and inspected the well and house. Accordingly, he
prepared valuation report which are at Exh.30 and 31
respectively. If Exh.30 and 31 are perused, the valuation of
the acquired well is Rs.44,303/-, and valuation of the
acquired house is Rs.67,913/-.
25. Admittedly, Dattatraya (PW.2) has calculated this
amount by considering the price of the construction
material of the year 2003. This aspect is very clear from
cross examination. He has testified that, he visited the spot
6
in 1990 and prepared valuation report in 2003. Thus,
valuation report at Exh.30 and 31, prepared by Dattatraya
(PW.2), are after a period of 13 years, of his inspection. Not
only this, he has further testified in cross examination that,
prior to 10 years, the prices of construction materials were
low. In such circumstances, the valuation report at Exh.30
and 31, are required to be considered, with certain
qualifications. Dattatraya (PW.2), is consulting Engineer,
and is having knowledge in the field of construction, cost of
construction material, age of construction etc. Using his
knowledge, he has prepared valuation report and has
arrived the price of the well at Rs.44,303/-, and price of the
house at Rs.67,913/-. But this price is calculated after a gap
of 13 years, which is an admitted fact. Hence, the valuation
arrived by Dattatraya (PW.2) of the house and well, has to
be accepted by deducting 50% from it. Accordingly, value
of the house and well would be Rs.33956.50, and
Rs.22151.50. Claimant is entitled for only this amount as
enhance compensation. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1
and 4 in partly affirmative."
11. While determining the compensation for the House and Well, the
learned Reference Court has considered the evidence available on record
and given the reasons for deducting 50% amount from the amount
calculated by the Valuer i.e. PW-2 - Dattatraya. Thus, no interference is
called for in the well reasoned conclusion.
12. There is no dispute in respect of the ratio of the Judgment in
Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). The relevant observations reads as
under :-
"33. In view of above, we answer the question of
reference as under: (a) If the possession is taken before
the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act is published and /or before the award is passed, the
landowner would be entitled for interest as per Section 34
necessarily from the date of passing of the award under
Section 11 of the said Act, except in cases where the
possession is taken in accordance with Section 17 of the
said Act, and in that situation only, the provision of
7
Section 34 of the said Act shall start operating from the
date of possession. (b) We also hold that the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalitkumar
Himmatlal Shah v. State of Maharashtra and others,
decided by Smt. Vasanti A. Naik and Shri Prasanna B.
Varale, JJ. and reported in 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. 742 :
[2012(4) ALL MR 779], lays down a correct position of
law and it does not require reconsideration."
Therefore, the impugned Award, to the extent of date from which the
interest would be payable is required to be modified in consonance with
the aforesaid Judgment. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(a) First Appeal No.1280 of 2016 filed by the Acquiring Body is partly
allowed to the extent of the interest. The interest awarded by the
learned Reference Court shall be computed from the date of Award
under Section 11 of the LA Act.
(a-1) Rest of the Award remains the same.
(b) First Appeal No.1876 of 2017 is dismissed.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/12/2025 17:47:03
