Bombay High Court
Rameshwar Ashruji Shejol And Anr vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, ... on 4 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11459
1/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2010
1. Rameshwar Ashruji Shejol
Aged about : Major, Occu : Agril;
2. Kaushalya Ashruji Shejol
Aged about : Major, Occu : Agril.
[Died on 29/9/2013. No legal heirs]
[Name of Appellant No.2 deleted as per the
order of Registrar (J) dated 11/11/2014]
R/o Sawangi Gawali, Tahsil Chikhali,
District Buldhana. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Buldhana.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Buldhana.
3. Executive Engineer, Pentakli Project,
Pentakli, Tahsil Chikhali, District Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. N. A. Waghmare, Advocate h/f Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent
No.3.
Mr. H. D. Futane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : OCTOBER 08, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 04, 2025.
JUDGMENT
. Heard Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, learned Counsel for the Appellants,
Mr. N. A. Waghmare, learned Counsel h/f Mr. P. B. Patil, learned Counsel for
the Respondent No.3 and Mr. H. D. Futane, learned AGP for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
2. By this Appeal, The Appellants, who are the original Claimants,
challenged the Judgment and Order dated 7/12/2009 passed by 3 rd Joint Civil
Judge Senior Division, Buldhana in Land Acquisition Case No. 334/2000.
3. The undisputed facts of the present Appeal are that, the
Appellants were the owners of the land Survey No. 10/4, admeasuring 1.58
HR and Survey No. 41/1 admeasuring 1.40 HR of mouza Sawangi Gawali,
Tahsil Chikhali, District Buldhana. Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23/11/1995 and in pursuance thereof,
land in question was acquired by the Respondents for the purpose of Pentakali
Project. The Land Acquisition Officer, vide his order dated 26/12/1999,
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.41,408/- per hectare for the land
3/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
which was acquired from Survey No.10/4 admeasuring 1.58 HR and
Rs.45,391/- per hectare for the land which was acquired from Survey No.41/1
admeasuring 1.40 HR.
4. The Appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer, has preferred the reference proceeding and
thereby claimed enhancement of the compensation amount. However,
according to the Appellants, the learned Reference Court failed to appreciate
the factual as well as legal position and thereby enhanced the compensation at
very low level i.e. Rs.61,793/- per hectare for the land Survey No.10/4 and Rs.
57,774/- per hectare for the land Survey No. 41/1. Hence, Appellants
preferred present Appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The Appellant
No.2, during pendency of present Appeal was expired, and therefore, her name
is deleted from the array of Appellants.
5. The Appellant, who claimed enhancement, stated that he has
examined the witnesses who have categorically stated that market value of the
land was Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The Appellant has relied upon various sale
instances to substantiate his claim. The Appellant has then stated that learned
Reference Court has ignored the specific sale instances of village Ghanmodi,
which was similarly situated land like of the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant
4/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
stated that the learned Reference Court has not properly considered the
material which was brought on record by the Appellant, and therefore, seeks
enhancement in the compensation.
6. According to the Appellant, this Court has decided First Appeal
No. 215/2008 along with identical cases, in which, the land acquired was for
the Pentakali Project vide Notification dated 23/11/1995. He has pointed out
that this Court has awarded the compensation for dry crop land at the rate of
Rs.1,27,500/-.
7. Per contra, the Respondents appearing in this Appeal strongly
objected the enhancement which the Appellant has claimed in the matter.
According to the Respondents, learned Reference Court has considered the
entire evidence in proper manner and findings recorded therein are judicious
and no error can be found in the matter. According to the Respondents, the
Appellant has failed to point out any sale instance or decision of the adjoining
land to demonstrate that the market value of the land was more than the
amount which was awarded by the Reference Court. Hence, for all these
reasons, it is stated that there is no merit in the submission of Appellant to
interfere by this Court in the matter.
5/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
8. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel
for both sides, I have gone through the record and proceeding of the present
Appeal so also the Judgment of this Court, relied upon by the Appellant.
9. Perusal of the record shows that in the present Appeal, the
Appellant has examined himself at Exhibit-21 before the Reference Court and
unequivocally pointed out the sale instances which are exhibited from
Exhibit-22 to Exhibit-26. The Appellant has further relied upon the 7/12
extracts of the land to substantiate his submission about the variety of crops as
well as his ownership and other aspects of the matter.
10. During the course of argument, the Appellant has relied upon the
sale instances, particularly Exhibit-26, which was the sale deed of Gat No.16
admeasuring 2.94 HR situated at mouza Ghanmodi executed between Gulab
Daulat Mhalsane and Raju Vyankatrao Jadhav. According to the said certified
copy of the sale deed, which was executed on 23/4/1998, the transaction for
0.40 HR land was at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. According to the
Appellant, the land involved in the said sale instance is only at a distance of 2
km away from the suit land and even though it is a low quality of dry crop
land, the market value of the same was at higher rate. Hence, according to the
6/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
Appellant, considering the sale instance which he has specifically proved, was
not properly considered by the Reference Court in the matter.
11. Then he relied upon the Judgment of this Court in First Appeal
No. 215/2008 along with connected Appeals, wherein this Court, by
considering the sale instances and other documentary evidence produced
before the Court, the rate of dry crop land which was acquired under Pentakali
Project, has been awarded at the rate of Rs.1,27,500/-, therefore, his
submission is that in any case he is entitled for the enhancement of
compensation.
12. The Appellant, to substantiate his submission that this Court can
consider post sale deed of the area, has relied upon the Judgment of this Court
in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, PWD Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa and
Another V/s Kalidas Atmaram Savaikar 1. In this Judgment the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and observed in paragraph No.11 as under :
"11. In Chindha Sonawane (supra), Their Lordships held that there
a no general rule that when considering sale instances, post
notification transaction are to be ignored altogether. Section 23 and
24 of the Act doe no prohibit post-notification sales from being taken
1 2018(3) Mh.L.J.769
7/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
into consideration while determining the market value. 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. It must generally depend upon the
purpose of the acquisition. The question whether a particular
transaction though post-notification one is relevant and can afford a
guide for determining the fair market value of the property acquired
as on the date of the notification will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. Just as a transaction effected long before
the date of notification will be of no value, similarly the transactions
long after Notification will have to be ruled out. But merely because
the transaction is effected two or three years after the date of
Notification, it cannot be rejected as irrelevant."
13. In the circumstances, the only question, which arises to be
determined in the matter in the light of abovesaid submission made by the
Appellant is, 'as to whether the Appellant is entitled to get compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,27,500/-, as determined by this Court in First Appeal No.
215/2008 or on the basis of post sale transaction which is relied upon by the
Appellant before the Reference Court.' So also one other ground, which the
Appellant has relied upon is towards the compensation of potkharab land, to
which, less compensation has awarded by the Reference Court.
14. To consider this aspect, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Ashok Kumar and Another V/s State of Haryana2
2 2016(4) SCC 544
8/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
would be relevant, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty
of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true
market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim made by the
land owner and there is no cap on maximum rate of compensation that can be
awarded by the Court and the Courts are not restricted to the amount claimed
by the land owners in their application before it.
15. In the light of abovesaid factual as well as legal position, it is clear
that, the land of Appellant being acquired for same project from same locality,
is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Appellant has strongly relied
upon the sale deed (Exhibit-26), whereby the market value of land was shown
at Rs.1,00,000/- for 0.40 HR (per acre). However, the transaction of this sale
deed is dated 23/4/1998. In cross-examination, the Appellant has admitted the
fact that said sale deed came into existence after spreading the news that Dam
would be constructed in the area. Sale deed also reflects the fact that
Agreement of Sale was executed in the month of November-1995 i.e. in the
month in which Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the post dated sale deed in
the matter.
9/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
16. This Court, while deciding First Appeal No. 215/2008, has
occasion to consider the said sale deed dated 23/4/1998. At that time, this
Court, by considering the fact that learned Reference Court by evaluating all
the sale instances produced before him, held that amount awarded at
Rs.51,000/- for 0.40 HR (per acre) is legal and proper in the matter. Therefore,
I concur with the finding recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
17. In the present Appeal, from the findings rendered by the learned
Reference Court and perusal of record established the fact that in Survey
No.10/4 the Appellant has taken the crop of Wheat, Chickpea (Harbhara), Red
gram (Tur) etc. Hence said land is having potentiality of irrigated land.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that land admeasuring 1.40 HR out of Survey
No.10/4 is to be treated as irrigated land and rest of the land is dry crop land.
On the basis of this fact, Appellant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation.
18. It is pertinent to note that from Exhibit 29 to 35 i.e. 7/12 extracts
of year 1986-87 to 1999-2000 specifically shows that in Survey No.10/4 out of
1.57 HR there was 0.18 HR potkharab land and in survey No.41/1, out of 1.35
HR, there was 0.05 HR potkharab land. According to me, the Government has
10/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
already determined as to how the compensation is to be awarded to potkharab
land. The Appellant did not place anything on record to show as to how the
value determined by the Government is incorrect in this regard. Hence, the
amount awarded towards potkharab land by the learned Reference Court
needs no interference in the matter.
19. In the light of above observation, I proceed to pass following
order.
ORDER
1. First Appeal is allowed.
2. The Appellant is entitled for the compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,42,500/- per hectare for the land admeasuring 1.40 HR out of
Survey No. 10/4 and Rs.1,27,500/- for the land admeasuring 1.35 HR
out of Survey No. 41/1 situated at Mouza Sawangi Gawali, Tahsil
Chikhali, District Buldhana.
3. Rest of the order passed by the Reference Court is confirmed.
4. The Respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount before
11/11 Judg.fa.480.2010.odt
this Court within a period of four months with due intimation to the
Appellant.
5. After deposit of the amount, Appellant is permitted to withdraw the
same.
6. No order as to costs.
20. In view of disposal of First Appeal, pending Civil Application No.
3540/2025 does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/11/2025 20:13:09
