Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Subhash Sadappa Bhandare on 2 May, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:13696-DB
FA-1459-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1459 OF 2020
Nirmalabai Bhausaheb Deshmukh
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2020
Subhash Sadappa Bhandare
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1461 OF 2020
Narsingh Rangnath Deshmukh
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANT
1 / 10
FA-1459-20.odt
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1462 OF 2020
Lalasaheb Narayan Mule
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3050 OF 2019
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANTS
2 / 10
FA-1459-20.odt
VERSUS
Lalasaheb Narayan Mule
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3051 OF 2019
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Narsing Rangnath Deshmukh
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 OF 2019
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Nirmalabai Bhausaheb Deshmukh
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
3 / 10
FA-1459-20.odt
AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3053 OF 2019
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the District Collector,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Subhash Sadappa Bhandare
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. S.V. Gundre, Advocate for appellants in FA/1459/2020 to FA/1462/2020
Mrs. K.B. Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl.G.P. for appellant - State in
FA/3050/2019 TO FA/3053/2019
....
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13th MARCH, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd MAY, 2025
JUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :
1. All these first appeals are taken up together for decision since the
challenge therein is to a common judgment and award dated 27 th September,
2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur ('reference
Court') in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 899 of 2009, 902 of 2009, 900 of
2009 and 894 of 2009. The first group of four appeals has been preferred by
the original land owners, whose lands have been acquired for construction
of, "Sulabh Jal Sanvardhan Yojana Pazar Kalva, Babhalgaon" ('percolation
FA-1459-20.odt
tank'). The Special Land Acquisition Officer ('S.L.A.O.') offered
compensation @ Rs.1150/- per R (gunthas). The appellants in the first
group of four appeals (land owners) claimed compensation @ Rs.300/- per
sq.ft. They, therefore, preferred aforesaid LARs. The reference Court partly
allowed them by granting compensation @ Rs.166/- per sq.ft. The
appellants/original land owners are, therefore, before this Court in the
appeals forming first group. The State too preferred the other four appeals
(second group) for reduction of the rate of compensation awarded by the
reference Court.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the land owners and learned
Addl.G.P. for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants / land owners would submit
that the lands were located close to Latur town. Some of the lands from Gut
No.28 and surrounding lands were acquired by the State for construction of
police parade ground. The Division Bench of this Court in State of
Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Digambar Manik Kalyankar, First Appeal No.
1668 of 2014 and connected matters, granted compensation @ Rs.371/- per
sq.ft. He, therefore, strongly relied on the said judgment and urged for grant
of compensation @ Rs.300/- per sq.ft.
4. Learned Addl.G.P. would, on the other hand, submit that the rate
granted by the reference Court was exorbitant. The reference Court, also
FA-1459-20.odt
erred in awarding interest from the date of possession of the land was taken.
She, therefore, relied on the Full Bench judgment in case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari; 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457, to urge for
dismissing the appeal of the land owners and allowing the State's appeals.
5. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the judgment
and awards impugned herein.
6. Details of the lands acquired are as under :-
Sr. L.A.R. No. Name of Claimant Acquired Land Acquired
No. Gat No. Area
1 894/2009 Lalasaheb 28 12 R.
2 899/2009 Nirmalabai 10 65 R.
3 900/2009 Narsing 28 14 R.
4 902/2009 Subhash 491 21 R.
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19 th
February, 2005. The S.L.A.O. passed the award on 09 th August, 2007. The
S.L.A.O. considered number of sale-deeds and drew average of
consideration for which those sale-deeds were executed and offered
compensation @ Rs.1150/- per R. The relevant observations made by the
reference Court are as under :-
20. In the case of "Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally -v/s-
Nookala Raja Mallu & Ors." (2004(1) BCJ 467), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that;
"The element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the
underlaying principles of fixation of market value with
reference to comparable sales are made.
(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of
FA-1459-20.odt
notification under Sec.4(1);
(ii)it should be a bonafide transaction;
(iii)it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to
the land acquired; and
(iv)it should possess similar advantages. It is only when those
factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a
comparable case."
21. In view of the observations and settled position of law, while
determining the market value of the land, comparable sale
instance is the best method in determination of market value
afresh. The sale instances relied by the claimants through sale
deeds is as under:-
Exh. Gat Village Amount Area in Date of Rate per
No. No. Sq.ft. sale-deed sq.ft.
21 28 Babhalgaon 330000/- 1400 09.12.2002 235.71
22 28 Babhalgaon 380000/- 1907.5 31.10.2002 199.21
23 28 Babhalgaon 330000/- 1400 01.11.2002 235.71
24 28 Babhalgaon 330000/- 1400 08.11.2002 235.71
25 28 Babhalgaon 400000/- 1400 29.10.2002 285.71
22. Thus, it is seen that the rate of sale instances is not the same.
They vary from Rs.199/- to Rs.285/- per sq.ft. It appears that the
value varies due to internal location of the plots in the lay-out.
Therefore, this minus factor has also to be taken into
consideration. Because it shows that every piece of land or plot
does not fetch same price. Perusal of all these sale-deeds reveals
that said sale-deeds are of different plot numbers situated in Gat
No.28. All these sale-deeds are of plots of which N.A. order was
sanctioned. Due to sanction of N. A., said plots were sold at the
rate which is mentioned in those sale-deeds. Admittedly, Gat
No.28 is one of the Gat number in the present claim. So also, the
village map filed at Exh.33 reveals that said plots are somewhat
near to each other. But, at this time, it is necessary to consider
that in the present claims although N. A. potentiality of said lands
are seen, but N.A. order of those lands is not sanctioned and
same is not produced by the claimants in this claim. Therefore,
sale-deeds which are produced by claimants are not acceptable
while determining the market price of acquired lands.
FA-1459-20.odt
23. But, the claimants have filed on record three judgments
delivered by different courts while granting the L.A.R. groups of
said village. The judgment at Exh.28 and 29 are passed in L.A.R.
(G.) No.279/2008 and 664/2009. These judgments are relating to
acquisition of lands at village Babhalgaon for police training
centre and are of different award. Said judgments are of different
acquisition proceedings. So, those judgments cannot be basis for
the decision of market price of acquired land in the present
claims."
The reference Court, however relied on the judgment and order
passed in another L.A.R. No. 289 of 2008 and granted the same rate.
7. The question is whether the appellants / land owners are entitled
for enhancement of compensation in terms of the rate granted by this Court
in case of acquisition of lands for police parade ground.
8. The lands which were the subject matter of case of Digambar
Manik Kalyankar (supra) were from Block/Gut Nos.28, 29 and 34 from village
Babhalgaon itself. In the present appeal as well, the land Gut No. 28 is
common in two of the four appeals from first group. As per the village map,
land Gut No.491 and 10 are some-what away from Gut No.28. However, on
one side of Land Gut No.491 there is a road. While the land adjoining Gut
No. 10 appears to have been small plots of land.
9. It is not in dispute that the lands acquired are close to Latur town.
The lands have been acquired for percolation tank. The land, Gut No. 28
FA-1459-20.odt
had N.A. potential. Some of the land in Gut No.28 has been converted into
non-agricultural assessment. Residential plots have been formed of the land
in Gut No.28. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to grant
compensation per square foot rate. The reference Court did the same.
10. We have perused the judgment in case of Digambar Manik
Kalyankar (supra). Notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of land
covered in the said appeal was issued on 17th May, 2006, while in the case in
hand, notification is dated 19th February, 2005. The sale instances therein
were all of the period from October to December 2002. Those pertain to
small pieces of land such as 400 sq.ft. and 1619 sq.ft. Since it was a case of
small portion of land, the Court directed to deduct 1/3rd of the amount of
compensation towards development charges. There is a gap of little over
two years between the sale instances and the date of notification.
Considering the fact that most of the lands acquired were agricultural on the
date of publication of notification, we propose to grant compensation close to
the rate granted by the Division Bench in the above referred judgment i.e. the
rate per sq.ft. granted by the reference Court as enhanced to Rs.371/- per
sq.ft. with rider to deduct 33% thereof since the sale instances relied on
pertain to very small pieces of land. 33% of Rs.371/- approximately comes
to Rs.125/-. Compensation per sq.ft., therefore, be Rs.240/- (round off).
11. The record indicates that possession of the lands acquired was
taken over before publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The
FA-1459-20.odt
reference Court, therefore, ought to have awarded interest from the date of
award. To that extent, Clause (4) of the awards impugned herein would be
set aside.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, appeals of the original land owners
are partly allowed in terms of following order :-
ORDER
(I) First appeal Nos. 1459 of 2020, 1460 of 2020, 1461 of 2020
and 1462 of 2020 filed by the land owners are partly allowed.
(II) The appellants / land owners be paid compensation @
Rs.240/- per sq.ft. (inclusive of the compensation granted by
the reference Court).
(III) Clause (3) of the awards impugned herein stand maintained.
(IV) First appeal Nos. 3050 of 2019, 3051 of 2019, 3052 of 2019
and 3053 of 2019 filed by State are partly allowed.
(V) Interest on the amount of enhanced compensation be paid @
9% p.a. for the period of first year from the date of award i.e.
09th August, 2007 and @ 15% p.a. for the subsequent years
onwards until the entire amount of compensation is paid.
( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )
SSD
