[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Lahu Gangaram Dadge vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 9 December, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:34274




                                                      (1)               FA-2154 and 2155-2024


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       FIRST APPEAL NO.2154 OF 2024


                          Laxman Gangaram Dadge,
                          Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
                          R/o Kavthali, Tq. Chakur,
                          Dist. Latur.                             ....Appellant
                                                                 (original claimant)

                          VERSUS

                     1.   The State of Maharashtra,
                          Through Collector, Latur,
                          Dist : Latur.

                     2.   The Executive Engineer,
                          Latur Medium Project,
                          Division Latur, Dist : Latur.

                     3.   The Special Land Acquisition
                          Officer (Suwarna Project), Latur
                          Dist. Latur
                                                               ....Respondents
                                                             (Original Respondents)

                                                   AND
                                       FIRST APPEAL NO.2155 OF 2024


                          Lahu Gangaram Dadge,
                          Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
                          R/o Kavthali, Tq. Chakur,
                          Dist. Latur.                             ....Appellant
                                                                 (original claimant)

                          VERSUS
                                   (2)                    FA-2154 and 2155-2024




1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Collector, Latur,
      Dist : Latur.

2.    The Executive Engineer,
      Latur Medium Project,
      Division Latur, Dist : Latur.

3.    The Special Land Acquisition
      Officer (Suwarna Project), Latur
      Dist. Latur
                                              ....Respondents
                                            (Original Respondents)



Shri. V. V. Ingle, Advocate for Appellant in both matters.
Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 in both
matters.
Shri. Akash D. Gade, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both matters.


                       CORAM                : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON                      : 27.11.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                      : 09.12.2025

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard both sides finally for final disposal of the appeals.

2. Being aggrieved by common judgment and award passed

by the District Judge-3, Latur, dated 11.03.2014 dismissing LAR

Nos.850 of 2006 and 841 of 2006, the claimants have preferred this (3) FA-2154 and 2155-2024

appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Vivekanand Ingle

submits that the Reference Court ought to have accepted sale exemplar

Exhibit-36 for awarding rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per Acre. It is submitted

that no evidence was laid by the Acquiring Body before the Reference

Court and sale deed dated 03.11.2014 of land Gat No.56 should not

have been treated as sale exemplar for fixing the rate. The approach of

the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court is

arbitrary and against settled principles of law. It is further submitted

that the appellants are entitled to escalation of 40%, as the proven sale

transaction was of 05.10.2001 and the notification under Section 4

was issued on 11.07.2005. It is submitted that impugned judgment is

patently illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Akash Gade appearing for the

Acquiring Body would submit that the sale instance of 03.11.2004 of

Gat No.56 was closer to the date of notification and hence it was

considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that

the evidence laid down by the appellants before the Reference Court (4) FA-2154 and 2155-2024

was without pleading and it is liable to be discarded. It is submitted

that the best possible evidence was withheld by the appellants from

the Reference Court. It is submitted that findings recorded by the

Reference Court are reasonable and plausible and no interference is

called for.

5. In both appeals notification U/Sec. 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter

referred as to the "Act") was issued on 11.07.2005. In First Appeal No.

2154 of 2024 50R of land from gut No. 55/2 situated at village

Kavthali, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur was acquired. In First Appeal No.

2155 of 2024, 75R land out of gut No. 55/2 from the self same place

was acquired. Award was passed on 07.02.2006. The sale instance of

1H 61R from Gat No.56 dated 03.11.2004 was considered. It was

haring rate of Rs. 90,683/- per hectare and accordingly rate of Rs.

99,680/- per hectare was deduced. The sale instance dated

05.10.2001 from land gut No. 54, which was pressed into service by

the appellants was not considered by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer.

(5) FA-2154 and 2155-2024

6. The respondents did not lead any oral evidence before the

Reference Court. Appellants proved sale deed dated 05.10.2001 at

Exhibit 36, by which 41R land from gut No. 54 was sold at the rate of

Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. It was having one mango tree. Its an adjacent

land. It is always an endeavour of the claimants to rely on the sale

transaction fetching highest rate.

7. I have gone through the reference applications. The sale

instance at Exhibit 36 was not pleaded. The cardinal principle is that

evidence need not be pleaded. The sale instance is evidence of the

appellants. The affidavit of examination in chief specifically discloses

in para No. 6 that rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre was prevalent. The

objection that sale instance was without there being any pleading has

no merit. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of

the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By L.Rs. Vs.

Bishun Narain Inter Collage and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555 cannot

be made applicable. The case at hand pertains to the compensation in

the acquisition proceedings and the proceedings are summery in

nature. The sale instance at Exhibit 36 is duly proved and cannot be

overlooked.

(6) FA-2154 and 2155-2024

8. In this regard, appellants have rightly placed reliance on

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Himmat Singh and

others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in (2013) 16 SCC

392 to buttress that the respondents did not produce any evidence

before the Reference Court that sale deed at Exhibit 36 was not

genuine or it was secured by collusion. The observations in para No.

31 of the judgment would enure to the benefit of the appellants.

9. My attention is adverted to the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the matter of Horrmal Vs. State of Haryana reported in LAWS

(SC)-2024-10-41. The relevant extracts are as follows :

"27. In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the compensation estimation process would be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same. The solution to this state of flux may thus be found in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, 12 where this Court laid down as follows:

"....It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide (7) FA-2154 and 2155-2024

transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition." [Emphasis supplied]

28. This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., 13 where a three-judge bench of this Court consolidated various precedents to affirm that in circumstances where there are multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein may be more congruous."

10. Appellants are entitled to rely on the sale deed at Exhibit

36 to claim rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The findings of the

Reference Court in para No. 13 are unsustainable castigating the sale

instance at Exhibit 36. Appellants are claiming escalation of 40%

considering the date of notification and date of sale deed at Exhibit 36.

The time gap is less than four years. Appellants are entitled to have

escalation of 10% per annum for three years only. By cumulative

effect they are entitled to have escalation of 30%.

11. Appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.

3,59,370/- per acre. I have gone through the judgments of the

Supreme Court relied by the respondents in the matter of Chimanlal

Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another

reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 and Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By L.Rs. Vs.

Bishun Narain Inter Collage and others (supra). Those are guiding (8) FA-2154 and 2155-2024

factors. By following principles cull down in para No. 4 the rate in the

present appeals is deduced.

12. The sale instance at Exhibit 36 is for the area of 41R, a

smaller in size than acquired area in both appeals. A mango tree was

existing in the said land. Considering the size of the land it is

appropriate to deduct 10% from rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. In

both appeals the rate is fixed at Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre. The

calculations by adding escalation of 10% per annum are as follows :

I Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre + 27,000/- (10% addition) = 2,97,000/-

II Rs. 2,97,000/- per acre + 29,700/- (10% addition) = 3,26,700/-

III Rs. 3,26,700/- per acre + 32,670/- (10% addition) = 3,59,370/-

13. I, therefore, pass following order.



                               ORDER

      A.    Both first appeals are allowed partly.

      B.    Appellants shall be entitled to get compensation at the

rate of Rs. 3,59,370/- per acre for the acquired land

alongwith interest at the rate of 12% on the said

amount from the date of notification of Section 4(1) of (9) FA-2154 and 2155-2024

the Act i.e. 11.07.2005 till the date of final award i.e.

07.02.2006.

C. Appellants shall get 30% of solatium at the market

value under Section 23(2) of the Act.

D. Appellants shall be entitled to 9% of the interest per

annum from the date of award i.e. 07.02.2006 and

after one year interest at the rate of 15% per annum

till the disbursement of amount.

E. Award be drawn accordingly.