Bombay High Court
Ramrao Sambhaji Kothare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30126
{1} FA 813 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2021
Ramrao S/o. Sambhaji Kothare
Age: 88 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Itgyal, Tq.Mukhed,
Dist.Nanded. ..Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through District Collector,
Nanded.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Lendi Prakalap,
Division Degloor, Degloor, Dist.Nanded.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work, Nanded. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Darshan D. Pokharkar
AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 3 : Mr.D.R.Korade
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.Anand Chawre
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 15 OCTOBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 04 NOVEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. By consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at
the admission stage itself.
{2} FA 813 OF 2021
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16-03-2019
passed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Mukhed, appellant/original
claimant has preferred instant appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the lands of the
appellant/claimant are acquired by the respondent acquiring body
for Lendi Major Project. It is not disputed that the lands situated in
the vicinity of village Itgyal, Tq.Mukhed, at Block No.5-B to the
extent of 02 H 10 R, block No.377 to the extent of 00 H 01 R, block
No.41-B to the extent of 00 H 19 R, belonging to appellant/claimant
has been acquired by the respondent acquiring body for aforesaid
project.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has granted
compensation of Rs.2,16,838/- in toto including compensation
towards a bore-well and pipeline. The claimant challenged the said
award of SLAO before the Reference Court.
The Reference Court has increased the compensation amount
by 30% and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,81,890/- and also
granted additional compensation of Rs.53,143/- towards fruit
bearing trees. Again, dissatisfied by the enhanced compensation
awarded by the Reference Court, instant appeal is preferred by the
appellant.
{3} FA 813 OF 2021
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Reference Court has not followed the principles well settled in
respect of granting compensation for the acquired land. He further
submits that there is no provision for granting only 30% increase
over and above the compensation granted by the SLAO. Therefore,
such methodology adopted is erroneous. He further submits that
learned Reference Court, though observed in paragraph no.11 and 12
of the impugned judgment about existence of a bore-well and
pipeline, learned Reference Court has not considered the lands as
irrigated one. Therefore, he submits that, in view of above, the
lands acquired are required to be considered as irrigated lands and
accordingly, compensation is required to be enhanced.
5. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court to the
Judgment of this Court dated 16-01-2019 in passed in First Appeal
No.3133 of 2009 with connected matters and decision of this Court
dated 25-10-2023 in First Appeal No.103 of 2016 and connected
matters, and submits that, the land acquired therein were for the
same project and this Court has granted Rs.2,50,000/- per Hectare
for irrigated land. Considering the above situation, learned counsel
prays for enhancement in the compensation in similar manner and at
same rate.
{4} FA 813 OF 2021
Learned counsel also submits that the learned Reference Court
has not awarded any compensation towards structure i.e. bore-well
and pipeline. He also submits that the learned Reference Court
awarded inadequate compensation towards the fruit bearing trees
too.
6. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 acquiring body supports
the impugned judgment and submits that there was no source of
water in the acquired land and the learned Reference Court noted the
finding that there was no evidence about existence of well in the
acquired land.
7. Heard. Perused the record. The learned Reference Court in
paragraph nos.11 and 12 of the impugned judgment has observed as
under :
"11] The present claimant also claims a well, a bore-well, a
structure, a pipeline & certain fruit bearing trees, present in the
acquired lands. The existence of a well, is not evident vide
either the award (Exh.16), E-Statement (Exh.17) or any other
reliable documentary evidence on record. The existence of
pipeline & a bore-well is evident vide the chart alongwith the
award & also E-statement (emphasis laid). The fruit bearing
trees are also evident vide award (Exh.16) & E-statement
(Exh.17).
{5} FA 813 OF 2021
12] In support of his contention, of existence of a borewell &
a well, the claimant also examined their witness no.02 viz. Anil
Vaijanath Fulari (Exh.12), who is an expert in that regard,
equipped with a degree in that behalf. This witness though has
put-forth the existence of a well, in the acquired lands, however
there is no other reliable and cogent evidence on record to
conclude that way"
8. From the aforesaid observations of the learned Reference
Court, it is clear that specific finding has been recorded regarding
existence of a bore-well and laying of pipeline. Therefore, in the
opinion of this Court, so much evidence is sufficient to hold that the
land acquired was irrigated. As this Court has granted compensation
@ Rs.2,50,000/- per Hectare for the irrigated lands, which were
acquired for the same project, this Court is of the view that, in the
present case also compensation needs to be granted at the same rate
for irrigated lands.
9. As regards to grievance of non-consideration of appropriate
compensation for fruit bearing trees, learned counsel for appellant
submits that, undisputedly there is evidence suggesting availability of
fruit bearing trees and even qualified Expert was examined for
ascertaining its value, however, the same has not been correctly
appreciated and ultimately, he urges for grant of appropriate
{6} FA 813 OF 2021
compensation. Finding fault in the appreciation on the part of the
Reference Court to this extent, attention is invited to paragraph 13 of
the impugned judgment.
10. In view of above submission, judgment of the Reference Court
is visited and it is emerging that learned Reference Court has
appreciated the evidence of witness no.3 Nandkumar Ganpat Patil
(exh.29), who was witness and alleged expert for valuation of trees.
In paragraph 13, learned Reference Court has bothered to reflect the
educational qualification of witness no.3 as holding degree of M.Sc.
Agri. and it is further noted that according to said witness, valuation
of two Mango trees is Rs.48,600/-, five Jujube trees to the tune of
Rs.41,810/-, two Tamarind trees to the tune of Rs.1,22,165/- and as
such, sum total of entire trees is arrived at Rs.2,12,572/-. Learned
Reference Court has further taken into account panchanama exh.34
as well as valuation report of above expert at exh.35 and 36,
however, the Reference Court has recorded finding that witness has
exaggerated the amount of income from trees. Such observations are
now questioned and it is tried to be submitted that there was no
reason to record finding of exaggeration as there was no contrary
evidence to form such opinion.
{7} FA 813 OF 2021
11. This Court has accordingly visited exh.36 i.e. Valuation of Fruit
Bearing Trees, which shows consideration of two Mango trees, five
Ber trees and two Tamarind trees. Ages of each of the type of tree is
19 years, 16 years and 39 years respectively. It needs to be noted
that the Reference Court has marked above valuation report as an
exhibit and therefore, there is no reason to not to appreciate such
documentary evidence. By using common knowledge, there is no
reason to not to consider the valuation reached at by an Expert, who
is also shown to be qualified in the field of agriculture. Resultantly,
there being no sufficient cause or reason to preclude the above
valuation report, the same is taken recourse to for ascertaining value
of fruit bearing trees. The Expert seems to have valued above trees
to the tune of Rs.2,12,572/-. Learned counsel for appellant herein
himself has claimed atleast consideration of 80% of the above
amount. In the fitness of things, to strike a balance and taking into
account age of the trees, which admittedly must be fruit bearing one,
it would be just and proper to grant atleast 60% than the one
awarded by the Expert towards compensation for fruit bearing trees.
12. Similarly though before the Reference Court, appellant had
{8} FA 813 OF 2021
placed on record valuation of structure comprising of bore-well and
pipeline at exh.27 showing valuation to the tune of Rs.83,059/-, by
applying Thumb Rule for above referred bore-well and pipeline, and
considering the area of Gat/Block No.5B to be of 2 Hectare 10 Are,
Rs.50,000/- would be just and proper compensation for bore-well
and pipeline. Accordingly, I pass following order :
ORDER
(I) The market value of the lands involved in the present
appeal is determined @ Rs.2,50,000/- per Hectare.
(II) The appellant is entitled for Rs.1,27,543/-
(60% of Rs.2,12,572/- valuation shown at Exh.36)
towards fruit bearing trees.
(III) The appellant is also entitled for Rs.50,000/-
towards structure i.e. bore-well and pipeline.
(IV) The appellant in the present appeal is accordingly
held entitled for the enhancement in the amount of
compensation.
(V) Rest of the order of the Reference Court granting rate
of interest and statutory benefits not being touched upon,
there is no change in the same.
{9} FA 813 OF 2021
(VI) The appellant/claimant shall pay the deficit Court
fees, if any, on the enhanced compensation.
(VII) Rest of the impugned judgment is maintained.
(VIII) The award be modified accordingly.
(IX) The appeal stands partly allowed in aforesaid terms.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
