Bombay High Court
Pandurang Ramrao Somvanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:14723
1 FA192.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2017
[L.A.R. No. 774/2005]
Pandurang S/o Ramrao Somvanshi
Age : Major Years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Ashta Kasar, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...Appellant
[Orig. Claimant]
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Manjra Project, Osmanabad,
Dist. Osmanabad.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Division Osmanabad, Osmanabad. ...Respondents
[Orig. Respondents]
.......
Mr. Prashant V. Gole h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale - Advocate for Appellant
Mr. R. B. Dhaware - AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
.........
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 23.04.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 12.06.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act'] for further
enhancement in the compensation for the acquisition of the Appellant's
2 FA192.2017.odt
land, acquired for the purpose of submergence of Kolnur Pandhari
Percolation Tank, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under : -
2.1. The Appellant was the owner and possessor of land Survey
No. 108, admeasuring 2 Hectare 90 Ares, and Survey No. 114,
admeasuring 0.40 Ares, situated at village Kolnur [Pandhari], Taluka
Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
[hereinafter referred to as "SLAO"] started acquisition proceedings and
issued a Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act in the Official
Gazette on 15.12.1995 and published the same in the newspaper dated
13.12.1994. The Notification under Section 6 of the LA Act was issued
in the Official Gazette on 08.02.1996 and published in the newspaper
dated 15 & 19.03.1996. The Appellant's agricultural land referred to
above came to be acquired for the said acquisition proceedings. The
SLAO issued a Notice under Section 9 of the LA Act, which was
responded by the Appellant, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per
Acre for his acquired land. The SLAO declared the final Award under
Section 11 of the LA Act on 08.09.1998 and awarded compensation to
the Appellant for his acquired land at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per Hectare.
2.2. The Appellant, being not satisfied with the compensation
awarded by the SLAO, filed a Reference Application under Section 18 of
3 FA192.2017.odt
the LA Act, claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/-
per Acre along with compensation for fruit-bearing trees, structures and
other statutory benefits. The Reference Application was referred to the
learned Civil Judge for adjudication, which came to be registered as
L.A.R. No.774/2005. The Reference was contested by the State by filing
a Written Statement below Exh.11 and denied the claim of the Appellant.
The learned Reference Court framed the issues below Exh.12. The
Appellant examined himself in support of the Claim Petition by filing an
Evidence Affidavit below Exh.27. He was cross-examined on behalf of
the State. The Award under Section 11 passed by the SLAO and copies
of Sale Instances were brought on record. The Appellant examined the
Private Valuer and Consultant Engineer below Exh.36, and he was also
cross-examined on behalf of the State. The learned Reference Court
passed the Judgment and Award dated 23.11.2012 partly allowing the
Reference and awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.11,555/- per Acre
for acquisition of the Appellant's land, along with statutory benefits.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that though one of the Sale Instances relied upon by the Appellant before
the Reference Court was of the nearby village and of the year 1997, the
same was not considered, as it was two years after the Notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act. In support of his submissions that,
4 FA192.2017.odt
Post-Notification Sale Deeds can be considered, he relied on the
judgment in Chindha Vithal Sonawane Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, MANU/MH/0208/1973. The Valuer was examined, and the
evidence on record shows that there was a Well in the acquired land. The
LA Act was beneficial legislation. He further submitted that the Appeal
be allowed and the compensation claimed in the Reference Application
be granted.
4. It is submitted by the learned AGP, appearing on behalf of
the Respondents, that there was no evidence brought on record to show
the quality of the acquired land, there was no proximity between the
acquired land and the land which was the subject matter of the Sale
Instance post two [2] years from the date of Section 4 Notification. The
evidence of the Private Valuer examined by the Appellant shows that,
there was no joint measurement done by him, there were no documents,
and no 7/12 extract was there to support the Valuer's Report. The learned
Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record
and partly allowed the Reference Application, and further enhancement is
not warranted. He relied on the Judgment in Vithal Rao and Another
Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2017) 8 SCC 558.
5. In Chindha (supra), one of the contentions on behalf of the
Respondent/State was that the Sale Deeds pertaining to post-notification
5 FA192.2017.odt
period should have been regarded as irrelevant and ought to have been
discarded by the learned Reference Court, especially when those were of
much later dates - two to three years later than the date of the publication
of the relevant Notification. Dealing with the said contention and
considering the observations in one Judgment of the Bombay High Court,
it was observed that, there was no general rule that post-notification
transactions are necessarily to be ignored altogether. On the other hand,
all transactions would be relevant which could afford fair criteria for the
value of the property as at the date of the notification under section 4.
The distance of time by which a particular transaction is divorced from
the date of relevant notification will have a bearing on the probative
value and impact of that transaction while determining the fair market
value of the property acquired. It must generally depend upon the
purpose of acquisition and the question whether any particular
transaction, even if it be a post-notification transaction, is relevant and
can afford a guide for determining the fair market value of the property
acquired as at the date of the Notification will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Just as transactions long prior to the
notification may be of no value, similarly the transactions long after the
notification would be of no value. But it cannot be laid down as any
positive rule that such translations have necessarily to be ruled out
altogether. In fact, sections 23 and 24 do not prohibit post-notification
6 FA192.2017.odt
sales from being taken into consideration while determining the market
value of the acquired land.
6. In Vithal Rao (supra), the principles of law relating to
acquisition of land under the LA Act laid down in Chimanlal
Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751, are
considered. In addition to the principles laid down in the said Judgment,
the other aspects are also considered and it is observed that the Court also
should take into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land apart
from the other relevant consideration.
7. Coming to the case on hand, there is no dispute on the aspect
of extent of Appellant's land and its acquisition for the submergence of
Kolnur Pandhari Percolation Tank. The Appellant, who relied on the Sale
Instances below Exhs.31 and 32 of post two (2) years period from the
date of Section 4 Notification is in respect of the lands situated in another
village, and Sale Instance of another village of the year 1987 below Exh.
30, admitted in the cross-examination that during the period 1992 to
1995, the sale translations took place in the village where the acquired
land was situated. There is no dispute that the Section 4 Notification was
of the year 1995. The cross-examination shows that he was not knowing
the sale instances, which he filed on record below Exh. 30 to 32. When
the sale transactions had taken place in the village where the acquired
7 FA192.2017.odt
land was situated, those sale instances would have been more relevant.
Though, there is no bar in considering the post Section 4 Notification sale
instances, there has to be evidence on record to show the proximity
between the acquired lands and lands which were the subject matter of
the sale instances in all the relevant aspects. The sale instance considered
by the learned Reference Court in determining the compensation is more
relevant and proximate to the acquired land.
8. The evidence of Witness No. 2 i.e. Valuer, examined by the
Appellant shows that, he did not issue any notice to the Government or to
the Acquiring Body before carrying out exercise of valuation of the
acquired land. It has come in his cross-examination that, he had not
prepared panchanama on the spot at the time of valuation. He accepted
that, he did not produce on record the DSR rates prevailing at the time
when he carried out the valuation.
9. The impugned Judgment shows that the learned Reference
Court considered the Award passed by the SLAO and came to the
conclusion that the per acre rates of the land at the time of Section 4
notification was Rs. 11,555/- per acre. The said rate, as seen from the
observations made in the Judgment, was based on the sale instance
referred at Sr.No.11, dated 22.03.1995, i.e. during the period of Section 4
Notification which was published on 10.02.1995, in the Award of the
8 FA192.2017.odt
SLAO. The said lands were from the village where the acquired land
was situated. The learned Trial Court, therefore, has rightly observed that
the said sale instance was comparable and enhanced the compensation by
observing that the compensation awarded by the SLAO at the rate of
Rs.24,000/- per Hectare, was inadequate. Considering the evidence
available on record, no fault can be found with the impugned Judgment
and Award. The observations and the conclusion drawn and reached by
the learned Reference Court are based on the evidence available on
record. No interference is called for in the same. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ii) R&P be sent back to the concerned Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE]
JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/06/2025 17:49:39
