[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shivaji Rangrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2025
1 FA515.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2019
Shivaji s/o Rangrao Patil,
Age : 50 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Jewali, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...Appellant
[Orig. Claimant]
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Osmanabad,
District Osmanabad.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Manjara Project, Osmanabad,
District Osmanabad.
3. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, (Local Division),
Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ...Respondents
[Orig. Respondents]
.....
Mr. S. B. Gastgar - Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. B. A. Shinde - AGP for the Respondent/State
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : 11TH DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH DECEMBER, 2025
FINAL ORDER : -
1. This First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'] is preferred by the Original
Claimant for enhanced compensation. His land bearing Gut No. 345 to
the extent of 87 Are, situated at village Jewali, Taluka Omerga, District
Osmanabad, was acquired by the State for Percolation Tank under 2702
2 FA515.2019.odt
NIEN-6, Jewali in File No. 95/LAQ/CR/241. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer [for short 'SLAO'] awarded compensation at the rate
of Rs. 240/- per Are. Being not satisfied with the compensation
awarded by the SLAO, the Appellant preferred the Reference under
Section 18 of the said Act for enhanced compensation claiming the rate
of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Acre. The Reference was registered as L.A.R. No.
178/08. Other claimants, whose lands were acquired for the same
project, also preferred Reference Applications. The learned Reference
Court, by the common Judgment and Order / Award dated 29.04.2010,
partly allowed the Reference Applications and determined compensation
at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per Acre.
2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that, the Appellant was relying on the Judgment and Award dated
04.09.2013 passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A.R. No.
615/2005 and Judgment and Award dated 06.04.2013 passed by the
learned Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 533 of 2005, which was in respect
of acquisition of land from the same village i.e. Jewali, for the purpose
of Rehabilitation of Earthquake Affected People, wherein the learned
Reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-
per Are. The Appellant's land being from the same village, the
compensation be enhanced to the said rate. He further submitted that,
the Appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced.
3 FA515.2019.odt
3. It is submitted by the learned AGP that, by a common
Judgment, the other References are decided and no other claimants filed
Appeal for enhanced compensation. The Sale Deed which is relied upon
by the Claimant, though from the same village, there is distance
between the said land and the land in question and so it cannot be a
comparable Sale Deed. The lands in the above referred two (2)
judgments on which the Appellant is relying upon, were acquired for
Rehabilitation of Earthquake Affected People and those lands were near
the village having non-agricultural potentiality, and the land for the
Percolation Tank is at a distance from the village, therefore, the same
rate cannot be considered. The Appeal lacks merit and the same be
dismissed.
4. The Judgment and Award by the learned Reference Court is
common for six (6) lands in respect of References. There is no dispute
in respect of the extent of land of the Appellant and the purpose for
which the land was acquired. The Judgment of the learned Reference
Court show that, the evidence was led in only one L.A.R. bearing No.
173/08. The Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference
Court show that the Claimants relied on one sale instance dated
03.04.1996 between Kashinath Gunwantappa Sakhare and Baburao
Shivsamb Patil for Survey / Gut No. 361 for Rs. 2,77,000/- for land
ad measuring 2 Hectare 92 Are. The evidence of Witness No. 2 Sidram
4 FA515.2019.odt
Rudrappa Bhusane was accepted by the learned Reference Court with
the observation that, there was nothing on record to discard his
evidence. The observation in paragraph no. 9 from the Judgment of
learned Reference Court show that, the said Sidram was the witness for
the purchase of the said land in the sale instance. The learned Reference
Court recorded the finding that the Claimants have filed some relevant
documents and tried to show that price of the land in the area was not
less than Rs. 90,000/- per Acre. In paragraph no. 12 of the Judgment,
the learned Reference Court observed that it was justified to consider
the evidence adduced by the Claimant to enhance the compensation. It
is further observed in paragraph no. 13 that the evidence adduced by
the claimants show the price of Rs. 90,000/- per Acre and the sale
instances were of the same vicinity and of the year 1996. It is further
observed that, the sale instances are basic documents to consider the
valuation. It is further observed in paragraph no. 13 that, the land in
the sale instance was dry land and the lands in the References were
irrigated lands.
5. Though the learned Reference Court considered and
accepted the evidence led by the Claimants to show that, at the time of
issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. on
20.06.1996, the price of the land in the same village was Rs. 90,000/-
per Acre, however, by observing that Rs. 45,000/- per acre will be
5 FA515.2019.odt
justified compensation for the land, granted the said rate. There is no
reason assigned by the learned Reference Court to discard the relevant
sale instance brought on record by the Claimants. There is no finding
that the said sale instance was not genuine. There is no justification
given to grant the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per Acre despite considering and
accepting the evidence in the nature of Sale Instance. Considering these
aspects of the matter, in my view, the rate in the said sale instance,
which was admittedly executed prior to Section 4 Notification, is to be
granted as the enhanced compensation. The two decisions dated
06.04.2013 and 04.09.2013 by the Reference Court in L.A.R. Nos. 533 of
2005 and 615 of 2005, are in respect of acquisition of land from the
same village for different purpose. It is needless to state that, it is for
the Claimants to adduce the evidence before the learned Reference
Court in support of their claim for enhanced compensation. Thus, the
said decisions which are later in point of time need no consideration.
6. In view of the above discussion, the Appellant is held
entitled for compensation towards acquisition of his land at the rate of
Rs. 90,000/- [Rupees Ninety Thousand] per Acre, instead of Rs.45,000/-
[Rupees Forty Five Thousand] per Acre enhanced by the learned
Reference Court. Further, the other benefits be computed as per the
decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari,
2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 807. Hence, I pass the following order: -
6 FA515.2019.odt
ORDER
[i] The Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
[ii] The Award passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A.R.
No. 178/08 is modified to Rs. 90,000/- [Rupees Ninety
Thousand] per Acre, instead of Rs. 45,000/- [Rupees Forty
Five Thousand] per Acre.
[iii] The other benefits be calculated as per the decision of this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari,
2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 807.
[iv] R&P be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE]
JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/12/2025 11:40:52
