[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nandkishor Satyanarayan Agrawal vs The Collector, Jalgaon And Ors on 15 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:35112
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2019
Nandkishor Satyanarayan Agrawal
Age : 47 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. Shendurni, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1. The Collector, Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
M.I.W., Jalgaon
3. The Executive Engineer,
M.I.W. Jalgaon ...Respondents.
(Orig. Respondents)
......
Shri. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Respondent - State.
Shri. S. S. Chillarge, Advocate for the Respondent No.3
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 08, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 15, 2025
FINAL ORDER :-
. This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act
(for short, 'L.A. Act') by the Orig. Claimant for further enhanced
compensation against the acquisition of his land bearing Gat No.147/5
admeasruing 1 Hectare out of 2.79 Hectares from village Shendurni, Tal.
Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon for the purpose of Minor Irrigation Tank.
2
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.3 - Acquiring Body. Perused the
record.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that,
though the acquired land of the Appellant was Bagayat (irrigated land),
the learned Reference Court considered the same as Jirayat on the
ground that, separate compensation for Well was granted. The sale-deed
relied by the Appellant was discarded on the ground that it was
executed post Section 4 Notification. The 7/12 extract of the acquired
land was placed on record to show that, the Appellant used to take
Banana, Cotton, and Sweat lime. It is not necessary that, the Well should
also be acquired. The learned Reference Court did not consider the
evidence on record and only on guess work enhanced the compensation
to meager amount. The sale-deed relied by the Appellant was genuine.
By considering the evidence on record, the Appeal be allowed and
double rate of compensation be awarded by considering the acquired
land as Bagayat.
4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the Acquiring Body
that, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'SLAO') had
considered the Appellant's land as Jirayat. The Appellant, in his
3
cross-examination before the learned Reference Court accepted that,
there was no documentary evidence, except 7/12 extract, to show that
the acquired land was Bagayat. The learned Reference Court has rightly
discarded the sale instance relied upon by the Appellant as it was after
Section 4 Notification. Though the evidence of the Appellant show that,
there were several sale instances in the same village prior to the
publication of Section 4 Notification, the same were not brought on
record. The 7/12 extract brought on record was of 1994-95 which was
much prior to the Section 4 Notification and therefore, it would not be
sufficient to accept the contention that the acquired land was Bagayat.
The learned Reference Court has granted the interest from the date of
Section 4 Notification, which is not in consonance with the decision of
this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016
AIR (Bom.) 141, and award of the Reference Court be accordingly
modified.
5. There is no dispute about the acquisition of the Appellant's land,
the extent of acquired land and the purpose for which it was acquired.
There is no dispute that, Section 4 Notification was published in the
village on 20.05.1999. The cross-examination of the Appellant before
the learned Reference Court show that, he admitted that, except 7/12
extract, there was no documentary evidence on record to show that
Bagayat crops were taken in the acquired land. The cross-examination
4
of the Appellant further show that, there were several sale instances in
the village as per the then market price and quality of the land, 3 years
prior to the Notification. The sale instance relied by the Appellant in
support of his claim that higher compensation is admittedly dated
21.06.1999 by which the Credit Co-operative Society had purchased the
land admeasuring 0.40 Are for consideration of Rs.4,11,000/- which
was after the above referred date of Section 4 Notification. There cannot
be any dispute that, the land which was the subject matter of the said
sale-deed was smaller piece of land as compared to the acquired land,
though of the same village. Undisputely, the SLAO in the Award
considered the acquired land as Jirayat.
6. On the basis of the above referred material on record, it cannot be
said that, the learned Reference Court erred in discarding the said
sale instance and not considering the acquired land as Bagayat land.
The learned Reference Court has considered the principles laid down in
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and
another, AIR 1988 SC 1652. The impugned order further show that, the
submissions of the learned Advocate for the Appellant before the learned
Reference Court were considered, and accepted that the village
Shendurni where the acquired land was situated about 25 kms away
from Jalgaon and in the year 1999 market price of the suit field might
be Rs.2,50,000/- per Hectare. In absence of evidence before the learned
5
Reference Court to show that, the acquired land was the irrigated land,
no fault can be found with the Reference Court's decision that the
acquired land was Jirayat. Further, it is nobody's case that, except sale
instance relied by the Appellant before the learned Reference Court in
support of Reference, no sale-deed had taken place in the village where
the acquired land was situated. On the contrary, it has come in the
evidence of the Appellant that, there were several sale instances prior to
Section 4 Notification. No reason is forthcoming as to why those
sale-deeds were not brought on record by the Appellant in support of
the Reference. This gives rise to the only inference that, the rate in those
sale-deeds was less than the rate of land in the sale-deed relied upon by
the Appellant. Thus, not accepting the said sale-deed of June-1999 to
award compensation by the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted.
7. The learned Reference Court passed the Judgment and Award on
the basis of the evidence available before it and the conclusion is
supported by reasoning. Moreover, the contention of the learned
Advocate for the Appellant in respect of rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per
Hectare was considered and accepted. Therefore, no case exists to grant
further enhancement towards acquired land. As regards the interest, the
learned Reference Court granted the same from the date of possession,
which is contrary to the decision of this Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari
(supra) which held that, the interest should be granted from the date of
6
the Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. Hence, the Award to that
extent is modified. In this view of the matter, the following order is
passed.
ORDER
(i) The rate of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) per
Hectare granted by the learned Reference Court against the
acquired land of the Appellant is maintained.
(ii) The interest be calculated from the date of the Award under
Section 11 of the L.A. Act in view of the decision of this Court in
Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).
(iii) The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/12/2025 14:32:54
