Bombay High Court
The Dy. Director Town Planning, ... vs Mohan S/O Ramratan Jaiswal And Others on 12 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11920
1 FA.383.2010.J..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.383 OF 2010
The Deputy Director Town Planning, Amravati
Municipal Corporation, Amravati.
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) Mohan s/o Ramratan Jaiswal, aged about 42
years, Occ. Agriculturist.
2) Santosh s/o Ramratan Jaiswal, aged about 38
years, Occ. Agriculturist,
Both r/o Bhaji Bazaar, Amravati, Tq. And Dist.
Amravati.
3) State of Maharashtra, through Collector,
Amravati.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper
Wardha Project No.4, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil S. Shingane, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Shri S.C. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
CLOSED ON : 15.10.2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.11.2025.
2 FA.383.2010.J..odt
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed
by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No.215/2003 whereby the respondent
no.1 and 2/Claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakh for
acquisition of their land along with the statutory benefits.
3. In the present appeal, it is undisputed fact that respondent
nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the land bearing Survey NO.38/2003 ad-
measuring 1 Hector situated at Mouja Gambhirpur, Tq. and Dist.
Amravati. The said land is situated within the limits of Municipal
Corporation, Amravati ('the Corporation') and same was acquired by the
Corporation for Sewerage Treatment Plant. At the time of acquisition of
this land, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.7,04,000/- per
hectare for dry crop land and by considering the acquired land as an
irrigated land awarded the compensation Rs.14,08,000/- per hectare.
Respondent no. 1 and 2, being dissatisfied with the compensation award,
preferred reference against the award of LAO dated 27.05.2003.
4. It is pertinent to note that respondent nos.1 and 2, have
specifically pleaded in their reference proceedings that, the amount
awarded to them is very meager amount because just adjoining to the
3 FA.383.2010.J..odt
field i.e. Survey No.37 of mouja Gambhirpur land is being used for
residential purpose since long, and therefore, considering the potentiality
of the respondents' land, the amount ought to have been awarded by
treating the same as residential potentiality. It is further specifically
pleaded by the respondents that the land which was acquired for
Sewerage Treatment Plant, therefore, compensation towards development
charges is not required to be deducted as like in other cases in the present
matter.
5. It is specifically pleaded by the Respondent 1 and 2, that, due
to financial constraint though the valuation of the land is near-about
Rs.20,00,000/- and above, they have restricted their claim to Rs.5 lakh
only as they were not in a position to pay the court fee stamp in the
matter. At the same time, they made a categorical statement that, if the
Reference Court reached to the conclusion that respondents/claimants are
entitled for higher compensation as per valuation shown in the plaint,
they are ready to furnish the deficit court fee, on enhance amount.
6. In the background of above said factual position, the learned
Reference Court proceeded to decide the Reference proceedings filed by
the respondents/claimants. The Reference Court has categorically
recorded the finding that acquired land is situated within the limits of the
Corporation and in the center of Amravati City. Then relied upon the sale
4 FA.383.2010.J..odt
instances produced on record by respondent nos. 1 and 2, and accordingly
fixed the rate of Rs.300/- per square meter.
7. Perusal of the impugned judgment, particularly paragraph 18,
the Reference Court has done the calculation of the entitlement of the
respondent nos.2 towards the compensation and reached to the
conclusion that claimants are entitled for additional compensation of
Rs.6,92,000/. However, as the claimants(respondent nos. 1 and 2) had
restricted their claim of compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- only, the learned
Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakh only along with
the statutory benefits as permissible under the provisions of law.
8. This order of the Reference Court is challenged by the
acquiring body by way of present appeal mainly on the ground that the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant, by wrongly
considering the fact that the land owned by respondent nos. 1 and 2 is
having non-agricultural potentiality though the same was not converted
into non-agricultural land. It is further alleged that the conclusion drawn
by the Reference Court that land acquired is having residential potential
can only be considered when the land is converted into non-agricultural
land. Hence, according to the appellant, conclusion drawn by learned
Reference Court are based upon presumption, and therefore, the
indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter. The further emphasis
5 FA.383.2010.J..odt
of the appellant while advancing the argument before this Court is that,
learned Reference Court without recording any reasons, directed 30%
deduction only towards development charges. According to him,
considering the fact that the land was acquired for Sewerage Treatment
Plant, the development charges should be at higher side considering the
object for which the land was acquired. Hence, he seeks enhancement in
the development charges which are deducted only to the extent of the
30% in the matter.
9. At the time of hearing of the present appeal, the Counsel for
the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment of this Court
arising out of the same land acquisition proceeding i.e. in First Appeal
No.623 of 2012 (Vijay s/o Ramratan Jaiswal vs. The State of Maharashtra
and ors.) decided on 23.04.2024 . According to the respondent nos. 1 and
2/claimants, the land which was acquired in the said appeal was from
Survey No.38/3 ad-measuring 0.91 R, situated at mouje Gambhirpur for
Sewerage Treatment Plant by the Corporation. The Award in the said
matter was of dated 27.05.2023 and market value of the acquired land
was determined Rs.18,28,447/-. In the said proceedings also, the
appellant therein has restricted his claim to the extent of Rs.5 lakh and the
learned Reference Court has therefore awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakh
only though as per the calculations made therein, the claimant therein was
entitled for compensation of Rs.18,28,447/-. In view of this factual
6 FA.383.2010.J..odt
position in the appeal, this Court held that though the claim was restricted
by the claimant towards specific amount, Reference Court was duty bound
to direct the concern Authority to pay the Just and Fair compensation
which claimant was found actually entitle on the basis of market value of
land subject to the payment of deficit court fee, on enhanced amount.
10. The respondent no. 1 and 2 has further relied upon the
judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.604/2012 and 673/2012
wherein also, the claimants were awarded enhanced compensation though
they had restricted there claim for certain amount. In the light of the said
case laws, the submission of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is that though
they have restricted their claim only to the extent of Rs.5 lakh, they may
be awarded enhancement in compensation as calculated by the Reference
Court while deciding the Reference Proceeding in the present appeal.
11. The Claimants to support this proposition of law have relied
upon the following case laws :
1. Bhag Singh and ors. vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3
SCC 737.
2. Bhimasha vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. (2008) 10
SCC 797.
3. Ashok Kumar and anr. vs. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 544.
4. Mohd. Mustak Mohamad Ismail vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer and ors. 2017(5)Mh.L.J. 600.
7 FA.383.2010.J..odt
12. Per contra, appellant has strongly objected for such
enhancement in the present appeal, according to him, unless there is an
appeal, or cross-objection at the instance of Respondent no. 1 and 2 in the
matter, same cannot awarded in favour of claimants. So also, the appellant
has pointed out that the case laws which appellant is relying upon
wherein this Court has awarded the amount only in the cases where the
appeal was preferred by respective claimant. The claimants herein
knowingly not preferred the appeal in the matter nor raised any cross-
objection hence they are not entitled for enhanced compensation.
13. In the light of submission of both the rival parties, the
following questions fall for consideration in the matter :
(a) Whether respondents/claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation as calculated by the Reference Court particularly when
the claim was restricted before the Reference Court and no appeal
nor cross objection has been filed by them before this Court?
(b) Whether the appellant/acquiring body is entitled for increase in the
development charges by considering the fact that land was acquired
for the purpose of Sewerage Treatment Plant?
14. In the present appeal before deciding the above said questions
the legal position is required to be considered in the matter. It is not
disputed that the Land Acquisition Act was enacted for the purpose of
8 FA.383.2010.J..odt
determining the amount of just and fair compensation to the land owners
whose land is acquired for the public purpose compulsorily. Under section
23 of the Act, it is clarified that while determining the amount of
compensation, the Court is required to take into consideration the market
value of the land on the date of publication of the Notification and the
damage sustained by reason of taking of the possession of the land. It is
also required to be considered the market value of the land and the loss
caused to the person due to compulsory acquisition of the land.
14.1 So also, Section 25 of the Act, states that compensation
awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the
Collector under Section 11.
14.2 Under Section 28A of the Act, the legislature had made it
clear that if the Court allows any amount of compensation in excess of the
amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, even the person who
are not party to the proceeding, but aggrieved by the award of the
Collector can make an application to the Collector within three months
from the date of award claiming that amount of compensation payable to
them may be redetermined on the basis of compensation awarded by the
Court.
14.3 As such, perusal of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,
clearly demonstrate that the persons whose land is acquired should be
9 FA.383.2010.J..odt
awarded fair and adequate compensation in the matter.
15. Perusal of the above said provisions of the Act, clearly states
the purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provisions is salutary in
nature. Those land owners whose land is acquired for public purpose
should get fair compensation. With this aim, the aforesaid provisions are
incorporated by the legislature. As such, while determining the market
value the strict rule of the pleading is not made applicable and substantial
justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. This is so
because in the matter of compulsory acquisition of land by the
government, owners of the land whose land get acquired are not the
willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sale their land. They were
compelled to give the land to the State for the public purpose. The
provisions made under Section 18 to redetermine the valuation
specifically speaks that in order to ensure that the land owners be given
proper compensation, the provision is incorporated in the statute. As
such, once the fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners
whose land is taken away by the same notification should became the
beneficiary thereof. Hence, according to me, once fair compensation is
determined judicially, irrespective of the fact whether the land owner has
made claim of less compensation can be awarded the same compensation,
which is determined judicially in other matters. If it is not done, then same
would amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the
10 FA.383.2010.J..odt
persons though identically situated.
16. The Court in such situation is required to invoke the principle
of fairness and equality which are essential for dispensing the justice. The
Court has to keep in mind the problem solving approach and rather than
just deciding the cases and thereby reaching the gap between the law and
life, between law and justice. The notion of access the justice is to be
taken in broader sense. The objective is render the justice to the needy
that means fair solution to the conflicts thereby providing the real access
of justice.
17. In the light of this legal position, now moving to the facts of
the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the appellant in his reference
proceedings specifically stated that considering the market value of his
land on the basis of data which he has pleaded in his application, same
goes up to Rs.20,42,000/-, however being not in position to pay the stamp
duty, restricted his claim to Rs.5 lakh. But he has clarified in his pleading
itself that if the Reference Court come to the conclusion that respondent
nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to get higher compensation then they are ready
to furnish deficit court fees. However, this aspect is not at all considered
by the Reference Court while deciding the reference proceedings. Merely
because the respondents/claimants has restricted their claim has denied
the additional compensation for which they are legally entitled in the
11 FA.383.2010.J..odt
matter.
18. It will profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Bhag Singh (supra) wherein the Supreme
Court has observed thus:
3.....It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between
two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate
to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to
award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in
such a case there may be situations where an amount higher
than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for
instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an
account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against the
State Government for compensation for acquisition of their
land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the
appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the
land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned
single Judgement and the division Bench, the market value of
the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is
no reason why the appellants should have been denied the
benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny
this benefit to the appellants would tantamount to permitting
the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on
payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases
where, as for instance, under-agrarian reform legislation, the
holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice
with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of
a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived
of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or
which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little
compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be
fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment
of the true market value when the law, in so many terms,
declares that he shall be paid such market value. The State
Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and
should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or
revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the
state Government would otherwise be irretrievably be
12 FA.383.2010.J..odt
prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and
just claim of the citizen. We are, therefore, of the view that, in
the present case, the Division Bench as well as the learned
single Judge should have allowed the appellants to pay up the
deficit court fee and awarded to them compensation at the
higher rate or rates determined by them".
19. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 then relied upon the judgment in the
case of Bhimasha (supra), wherein the High Court has refused to award
the compensation on the premise that the appellant therein has restricted
his claim for certain amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case held
that restriction cannot be imposed and the appellant therein is entitled for
the additional compensation subject to payment of require court fees.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhimasha (supra) in paragraph 6
observed as under :
"6. In our view, the High Court should have, after taking
note of the peculiar facts of the case and the market value
determined by it, awarded higher compensation to the
appellants subject to the condition of paying the balance
amount fee. This, having not been done, we feel that ends
of justice could be met if the impugned order is suitably
modified."
20. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) has dealt with this issue
and by relying upon the Section 25 of the Act has recorded its finding in
paragraphs 7 and 11 as under :
13 FA.383.2010.J..odt
"7. The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the
maximum: the compensation by court should not be
beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on
the contrary, puts a cap on the minimum: compensation
cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been
expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on
minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that
a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount
claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the court to
award just and fair compensation taking into consideration
the true market value and other relevant factors,
irrespective of the claim made by the owner.
...
11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Land Acquisition Officer, a
three-Judge Bench a reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh³
and rejected the contention that a higher compensation
than that claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be
awarded by the Court. In that case, the High Court had
concluded that although the market price of the land was
Rs 66,550 per acre, since the appellant had only claimed
compensation @ Rs 58,500 per acre in his pleadings,
therefore he could only be awarded compensation limited
to his claim. This Court, while reversing the decision of the
High Court, awarded the petitioner the market value i.e. Rs
66,550 per acre thereby holding that the award would not
be limited to the claim made by him."
21. Accordingly, the legal position is made clear that the gap of
maximum amount is not restricted in the matter and it is the duty of the
Court to award the just and fair compensation. The co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Mohd. Mustak Mohd. Ismail vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Amravati and ors. [2017(5) Mh.L.J.600 by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambya
14 FA.383.2010.J..odt
Kalya Mhatre has observed in paragraph 11,12, 13 and 15 as under :
"11.Therefore, the necessary question raised for consideration
in the appeal is whether in the absence of any pleading or
amendment being carried out in the petition and in the
absence of any evidence, enhanced amount of compensation
at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare can be awarded to the
appellant as the similar amount of compensation was
awarded to the claimants whose lands were acquired under
the same Award?
12] Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decision of
Ambya Kalya Mhatre (supra) being faced with the similar
issue was pleased to hold as follows:-
"16...... A landowner, particularly a rural agriculturist,
when he loses the land may not know the exact value
of his land as on the date of the notification under
section 4(1) of the Act. When he seeks reference he
may be dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation but may not really know the actual
market value. Many a time there may not be
comparable sales, and even the Courts face difficulty
in assessing the compensation. There is no reason why
a landowner who has lost his land, should not get the
real market value of the land and should be restricted
by technicalities to some provisional amount he had
indicated while seeking the reference. As noticed
above, the Act does not require him to specify the
quantum and all that he is required to say is that he is
not satisfied with the compensation awarded and
specify generally the grounds of objection to the
award. Under the scheme of the Act, it is for the Court
to determine the market value. The compensation
depends upon the market value established by
evidence and does not depend upon what the
landowner thinks is the value of his land. If he has an
exaggerated notion of the value of the land, he is not
going to get such amount, but is going to get the
actual market value. Similarly if the landowner is
under an erroneous low opinion about the market
value of his land and out of ignorance claims lesser
amount, that can not be held against him to award an
15 FA.383.2010.J..odt
amount which is lesser than the market value. When
the Act does not require the land owner to specify the
amount of compensation, but he voluntarily mentions
some amounts, and subsequently, if the market value
is found to be more than what was claimed, the
landowner should get the actual market value. We fail
to see why the landowner should get an amount less
than the market value, as compensation.
Consequently, it follows that if the landowner seeks
amendment of his claim, he should be permitted to
amend the claim as and when he comes to know
about the true market value. When the Act is silent in
regard to these matters, to impose any condition to
the detriment of an innocent and ignorant landowner
who has lost his land, would be wholly unjust".
13. In para No.17 of its judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court was
further pleased to observe that the Collector making the offer
of compensation on behalf of state is expected to be fair and
reasonable. He is required to offer compensation based on the
market value. Unfortunately, Collectors invariably offer an
amount far less than the real market value, by erring on the
safer side, thereby driving the landowner first to seek a
reference and prove the market value before the reference
Court and then approach the High Court and many a time the
Apex Court, if he does not get adequate compensation. It was
therefore held that, "it would be adding insult to injury, if the
landowner should be tied down to a lesser value claimed by
him in the reference application, even though he was not
required by law to mention the amount of compensation when
seeking reference. The Act contemplates the landowner
getting the market value as compensation and no
technicalities should come in the way of the landowner getting
such market value as compensation".
....
15. The legal position as cristalysed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the authority is thus to the effect that the landowner
should get actual market value of the land acquired and no
technicalities should come in his way in getting the actual
market value. "
16 FA.383.2010.J..odt
22. From the above said position of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and followed by this Court, there is no dispute that the
amount of compensation cannot be restricted to amount claimed by the
claimant. Rather it is the duty of Court to pay just and fair compensation
to person whose land is compulsorily acquired. Therefore, considering the
provisions of land acquisition Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court I am of the opinion that though the respondent nos. 1 and
2 have restricted the compensation to the extend of Rs.5 lakh only in the
Appeal filed by Acquiring body, he can raised issue to grant just and fair
compensation merely because no appeal or cross-objection is filled, can't
be a reason to deny the market value of land on technical ground, subject
to payment of court fee, the amount actually calculated by the Reference
Court towards the compensation for which he is entitled, can be awarded
in the matter.
23. Other issue is about the development charges which the
appellant claimed in the matter in addition to the percentage awarded by
the Reference Court. It is pertinent to note that the acquired land is
admittedly within the limits of the Corporation. It is also established on
the record that the adjoining land of the land in question, are already
developed as residential area. Furthermore, from the evidence it is
pertinent to note that acquisition of land is for the Sewerage Treatment
Plant therefore same cannot be developed for residential purpose. So also,
17 FA.383.2010.J..odt
from the evidence of the appellant before the Reference Court it is came
on record that there was no possibility to convert the survey no.38 into the
layout because of nala/canal is passing through the land. The land is only
usable for the Sewerage Treatment Plant introduced by the Corporation.
As such, considering the object for which the land is acquired, I am of the
opinion that the 30% deduction done by the Reference Court towards the
development charges is correct and proper in the matter.
24. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order :
(a) The Judgment and order dated 24.04.2009 passed in L.A.C.
No.215/2003 is modified to the extend that respondent nos.1 and
2/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,92,000/- instead
of Rs.5 lakh for acquisition of land, with all statutory benefits.
(b) Rest of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2009 in L.A.C.
No.215/2003 is hereby confirmed.
(c) Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay/deposit the enhance
amount to respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants within a period of
three months from today.
(d) After deposit of the same, respondent nos. 1 and 2/ claimants are
permitted to withdraw the same subject to the satisfaction of the
Registrar (Judicial).
25. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/11/2025 10:15:42
