Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Nilkanth Laxman Hattarge on 7 November, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:30453
(1)
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2762 OF 2023
Shriram S/o Pandurang Dange,
Age : 65 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Babhalgaon, Taluka & Dist.
Latur. .. Appellant
(Original Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
Division, Latur. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2763 OF 2023
Manohar Rangnath Todkar (Died)
Through his Legal representative
1. Smt. Kondabai Manohar Todkar,
Age : 76 Years, Occ. Household,
2. Shri. Hanmant Manohar Todkar,
Age : 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture
3. Shri. Vasant Manohar Todkar,
Age : 56 Years, Occ. Agriculture
4. Shri. Jayant Manohar Todkar,
Age : 47 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
All R/o Babhalgaon Tq. & Dist.
Latur ..Appellants
(Original Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
(2)
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
Division, Latur. .. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2764 OF 2023
1. Pandurang S/o Ganpati Kadam,
Age : 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
2. Pitambar S/o Ganpati Kadam,
Age : 50 Years, Occ. Agriculture
Both R/o. Babhalgaon, Taluka and
District Latur. .. Appellant
(Original Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
Division, Latur. .. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2765 OF 2023
Nilkanth S/o Laxman Hattarge,
Age : 70 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Babhalgaon, Taluka & District
Latur Appellant
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
Division, Latur. .. Respondents
(3)
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2766 OF 2023
Ramchandra S/o Rangnath Todkar,
Age : 62 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Babhalgaon, Taluka & District
Latur. .. Appellant
(Ori. Complainant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
Division, Latur. .. Respondents
....
Advocate for the appellants : Mr. Shrikant J. Sonkawade
A.P.P. for Respondents/State : Mr. N. S. Tekale
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2023
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE COLLECTOR LATUR ..Appellant
VERSUS
SHRIRAM PANDURANG DANGE ..Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1197 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3710 OF 2023
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR LATUR ..Appellant
VERSUS
NILKANTH LAXMAN HATTARGE ..Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3711 OF 2023
(4)
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE COLLECTOR LATUR .. Appellant
VERSUS
PANDURANG GANPATI KADAM ..Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3712 OF 2023
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR LATUR ..Appellant
VERSUS
RAMCHANDRA RANGNATH TODKAR .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1200 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3713 OF 2023
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR LATUR ..Appellant
VERSUS
MANOHAR RANGNATH TODKAR ..Respondent
....
Assistant Government Pleader for Appellant : Mr. N. S. Tekale
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. S. S. Chillarge
.....
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , JJ.
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 26, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 07, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J):
-
1. All these First Appeals are taken up together for disposal by
common judgment, since the challenge therein is to the common
judgment and award dated 29 th April 2022, passed by the learned
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
Reference Court') in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83 of
2012 and 323 of 2017. The first group of five appeals has been
preferred by the original land owners, whose lands are acquired for
construction of Percolation Tank No.2 at village Babhalgaon, District
Latur. In the first group of five appeals, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer offered compensation @ Rs. 1394/- per R and 2788/- per R.
However, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the Reference
Petitions of the appellants/claimants by granting compensation @ Rs.
125/- per sq. ft. along with other statutory benefits. As such, the
appellants/claimants preferred these appeals for enhancement of the
compensation, by claiming it at the rate of 250 per sq. ft. along with
the other statutory benefits. The State too has preferred the other five
appeals, i.e. second group for reduction of rate of compensation
awarded by the learned Reference Judge.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
as well as learned A.G.P. for the State in their respective groups of
appeals.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in first group
of five appeals submitted that the impugned judgment is illegal,
perverse and inadequate compensation is awarded, since the learned
Reference Court failed to consider that the acquired lands were having
high potentiality as well as commercial use. According to him, the
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
acquired lands were adjacent to Latur-Nilanga State Highway and
surrounded by developed infrastructure. Besides, there were
Government facilities in proximity of those lands, such as District
headquarters, R.T.O. Office, Police Training Academy, District Police
Training Center, Government Rest House, and Primary Health Center.
There are also educational institutions, such as Dayanand Senior and
Junior College and Vocational College. In addition to that, there are
other institutions including Bank, Milk Dairy, Shopping Complex and
residential colonies near to the acquired lands. He pointed out that
village Babhalgaon is within the Municipal Limits of Latur city with a
population of over Ten Thousand and it is developing rapidly.
According to him, the learned Reference Judge definitely erred in not
considering the comparable sale instances of the same village in
respect of Gut No. 28, showing the rates between Rs. 214 to 250 per
square feet. Further, according to him, the learned Reference Judge
also did not consider the previous judgments wherein higher rate was
given to the similar placed lands. He further submitted that, though
the learned Reference Judge relied only on the last rate of Rs. 166/-
per sq. ft. as reflected from the award in LAR No. 894 of 2009 at
Exh.36, but further applied 25% deduction unnecessarily. Thus, he
prayed for enhancement at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq. ft. along with
allied statutory benefits.
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
4. On the contrary, the learned A.G.P. submits that the
compensation granted by the learned Reference Court in the instant
matters is definitely exorbitant and needs further reduction. He
pointed out as to how the judgment in First Appeal No. 1459 of 2020
with connected matters cannot be used on the ground of parity. As
such, he sought appropriate reduction in the compensation. In support
of his contention, he relied on the following judgments;
(I) Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of
Maharashtra Vs. Digambar Manik Kalyankar [First Appeal No.
1668 of 2014] dated 1st July, 2024.
(II) Division Bench of this Court in Nirmalabai Bhausaheb
Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [First
Appeal No. 1459 of 2020] dated 2nd May, 2025.
He also pointed out that the learned Reference Judge wrongly
awarded the interest under Sections 28 and 34 of of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of notification and the same ought
to have been granted from the date of award i.e. 12.02.2004. He has
submitted written notes of arguments.
5. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the entire material on
record along with the impugned judgment.
6. For quick reference, we have reproduced herein below the chart
showing acquisition of the lands of claimants/appellants, their
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
respective areas, the compensation awarded by Special Land
Acquisition Officer and compensation granted by the Reference Court
and the rate at which enhanced compensation is sought by the
claimants/appellants.
Sr. LAR No. Name of Acquire Acquired Compe- Compe- Compen-
No. Claimant Land Area nsation nsation sation
Gat No. awarded awarded claimed
by By by
SLAO Senior claimants
Division
Latur
1 80/2012 Shriram 355 01 H 34 Rs.1394 Rs. 125 Rs. 250
R Per R Per Per Sq.
Sq.ft Ft.
2 81/2012 Nilakanth 385 38 R Rs. Rs. 125 R. 250
1394 Per Per Sq.ft.
Per R Sq.Ft.
3 82/2012 Ramchandra 362 42 R Rs. Rs. 125 Rs. 250
1394 Per Sq. Per Sq. ft.
Per R ft.
4 83/2012 Manohar 362 27R Rs. Rs. 125 Rs. 250
2788 Per Sq. Per Sq. ft.
Per R ft.
5 332/2017 Pandrang 385 43 R Rs. Rs. 125 Rs. 250
Pitamber 1394 Per Sq. Per Sq. ft.
Per R ft.
7. Record shows that all these appellants have examined one
Shriram Pandrang Dange (claimant in L.A.R. No. 80 of 2012) on their
behalf at Exh.21. Further, they have produced Village Map at Exh.23
and Tahsil Map at Exh.40. They have relied on following sale
instances regarding Gat No. 28 of village Babhalgaon as follows :-
(A) Exh.22 : sale deed dated 01.11.2002, for land
admeasuring 1400 Sq. Ft., for the consideration
of Rs. 3,33,000/- that means Rs. 237.85/- Per
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
Sq.Ft.
(B) Exh. 23 : sale deed dated 12.12.2002, for the
land admeasuring 1400 Sq.Ft., for the
consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- that means
Rs.214.28/- Per Sq.Ft.
(C) Exh.24 & 25: sale deeds dated 23.12.2002 for the
land admeasuring 1400 Sq. Ft. each, for the
consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- each that means Rs.
250/- Per Sq.Ft.
8. Additionally, the claimants/appellants have also relied on
the following previous LAR Judgments for the lands acquired in
Babhalgaon village.
(I) Exh. 36 is the judgment in LAR(G) No. 894/2009
in respect of Gat No. 28, wherein rate of compensation
is Rs.166/- Per Sq.Ft.
(II) Exh.41 : LAR(G) No. 279/2008 in respect of (Gat Nos.
29,31,33,34) wherein rate of compensation is Rs.188/-
Per Sq.Ft.
(III) Exh. 42 : LAR(G) No.663/2009 in respect of (Gat Nos.
28,29,34) wherein rate of compensation is Rs. 220/- Per
Sq. Ft.
9. Though the present respondents had raised an objection
about limitation, but the learned Reference Judge discarded the said
objection by observing that respondents have failed to prove that the
notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was duly
served upon the claimants. We do not see any perversity in the said
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
observation. Moreover, the endorsement on the Reference Petition
(Exh.1) indicates that it was filed within the stipulated period.
10. The learned Reference Judge appears to have relied on
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal
Hargovinddas Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune [AIR 1988 SC
1652]. Admittedly, in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has given certain guidelines as to how the compensation in acquisition
cases is to be determined. As per those guidelines, the method of
comparable sale instances is held to be the best method, if they are
proximate in time and situation of the acquired land. Further, the
judgment says that certain factors such as size, location, and
development potential, etc. are also to be considered while
determining the proper valuation. It appears from the impugned
judgment that the learned Reference Judge rejected the sale deeds
(Exhibits 22 to 25) to be considered as comparable sale instances,
mainly on the ground that they pertain to Gut No. 28, situated on the
northern side of village with NA permission, whereas the lands under
acquisition in the instant matters, are on the southern side of village
and thereby not sufficiently proximate to the location of Gat No. 28.
The learned Reference Judge has also rejected the previous judgments
(Exhibits 41 & 42), since the lands under acquisitions in those matters,
were acquired for different purpose i.e. (Police Training Center) and
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
situated towards northern side of the village. However, it appears that
the learned Reference Judge has relied on the previous judgment in
LAR No. 894 of 2009 (Exhibit 36) wherein compensation at the rate of
Rs.166/- per Sq. Ft for portion of land in Gat No. 491 was granted. As
per the learned Reference Judge, the said land Gat No. 491 was nearer
to the subject land. However, the learned Reference Judge appears to
have deducted 25% from the aforesaid rate of Rs. 166/- Per Sq.Ft on
account of locational difference, and therefore, granted Rs.125/- Per
Sq.Ft. in the instant cases.
11. It is to be noted here that as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal (supra), considering the
comparable sale instances is the best method. The claimants/
appellants, as discussed above, have filed on record comparable sale
instances Exhibits 22 to 25 in respect of Gat No. 28, which is situated
at some distance from the acquired lands in the instant case. On
perusal of the evidence on record though the aforesaid sale deeds are
in respect of smaller plots of land, but sale deed at Exh.25 is dated
23.12.2002, which is proximate to the date of notification under
Section 4 of the Act in the instant matter i.e. on 10.01.2003. In the
aforesaid sale instances, rate of Rs.250/-per Sq.Ft. is granted. Further,
the judgment of L.A.R. (G) No. 663 of 2009 to L.A.R. (G) No. 666 of
2009 at Exh. 42 also indicates that the learned Reference Judge has
granted rate of Rs.220/- per sq. ft in respect of lands of village
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
Babhalgaon from Gut Nos. 28, 29 and 34. It is to be noted that when
the comparable sale instances are filed on record, then the comparable
sale instances or the judgment of parity, which has quoted higher rate
is to be preferred. It has come on record that land Gat No. 28 is
situated at northern side, then land Gat No. 491 is there in the middle
portion and the lands under acquisition in the instant matters are at
southern side. The learned Reference Judge has already deducted
25% from the rate granted for acquisition of land Gat No. 491.
However, the learned Reference Judge ought to have taken the rate of
Rs.220/- per sq. ft. for such deduction, and therefore, the learned
Reference Judge should have considered the previous judgment in
LAR (G) 663 of 2009 to 666 of 2009, wherein rate of Rs.220/- per
sq.ft. is granted for the lands acquired for Percolation Tank.
12. Thus, if we deduct 25% from the aforesaid rate of Rs.
220/- per sq.ft., then the rate comes to Rs.165/- per sq. ft. Therefore,
we deem it appropriate to grant enhanced compensation to all these
claimants/appellants for the acquisition of their lands at the rate of
Rs.165/- per sq.ft., which definitely appears reasonable and proper in
the background facts, as discussed earlier. The learned A.G.P.
vehemently argued that the learned Reference Court wrongly awarded
interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of
notification under Section 4, but as per the judgment in the case of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457]
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
the interest should have been granted from the date of award i.e.
12.02.2004. However, on going through the operative part of the
order of the impugned judgment, it is clearly mentioned by the
learned Reference Court that the aforesaid interest is granted from the
date of notification i.e. 10.01.2003. As such there appears mistake to
that effect and it has to be corrected. As such, we pass the following
order :-
ORDER
(I) All the five First Appeals bearing First Appeal Nos. 2762/2023,
2763 of 2023, 2764/2023, 2765/2023, 2766/2023 in first
group filed by the land owners are hereby partly allowed as
follows :
(II) The respondents shall pay the enhanced amount of
compensation @ Rs. 165/- per sq.ft. along with the amount of
component @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e.
10.01.2003 till the date of award i.e. 12.02.2004 vide Section
23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
(III) The respondent shall also pay 30% amount on the aforesaid
enhanced compensation as solatium vide Section 23(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act.
(IV) The respondents shall pay interest to the claimants on enhanced
compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of award i.e.
F.A. 2763-2023.odt
12.02.2004 for first year till 11.02.2005 and thereafter @ 15%
per annum till the date of realization of the entire amount
vide Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(V) The respondents shall pay to the claimants interest @ 9% per
annum on the amount awarded by S.L.A.O. as a compensation
from the date of award i.e. 12.02.2004 for first year till
11.12.2005 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of
realization of said amount as per Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
(VI) The respondents shall pay proportionate costs of these
Reference Petitions to the claimants and shall bear their own
costs.
(VII) The amount withdrawn by the claimants be deducted from
the enhanced compensation awarded.
(VIII) The claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fees, if any,
within one month from today.
(IX) First Appeal Nos. 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199 and 1200 of
2023 filed by the State stand dismissed.
(X) Award be drawn up accordingly.
(SANDEEPKUMAR C. MORE) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI )
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
