Bombay High Court
Vidc The Executive Engineer Lower ... vs Sharad S/O Rajaram Ranade on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12382
21-C fa 735-2010.doc 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.753/2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
Through Executive Engineer
Lower Wardha Canal Division,
Wardha
... APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Sharad Rajaram Ranade (Dead) through
L.R.'s:-
a) Pushpa S/o Sharad Ranade, Aged about 65 Yrs.,
b) Kapil S/o Saharad Ranade, Aged 32 Yrs.
c) Prs. Priya Prashant Sampat, Aged about 36 Yrs.
All R/o 257/A, Jagannath Shankar Sheth Road,
Girgaon, Mumbai, Above Rupee Co-operative
Bank Building, PIN :- 400004 Shri Anand
Wasudeo Abhyankar, Aged 63 Yrs.
R/o Mayapakhar, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Wardha
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Vidarbha Patbhandhare Vikas
Mahamandal, Wardha
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms A.S. Athalye, Advocate for appellant
Shri Sachin Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.1
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respondents/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-C fa 735-2010.doc 2/10
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 13.11.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard.
2. The appellant herein is the acquiring body, who has
challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil
Judge Senior Division, Wardha, in Land Acquisition Case
No.60/2000, whereby learned Trial Court has awarded the
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,06, 680/- to the petitioner along
with statutory benefits.
3. The main submission of the appellant to challenge the
judgment of the Reference Court is that the claimants/respondents
herein have failed to discharge their burden to establish by
producing concrete evidence on record for enhancement of claim.
Therefore, in absence of any such concrete evidence available on
record, the learned Trial Court has enhanced the compensation.
Therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter.
4. To substantiate the submission, the appellant stated
that the whole case of the claimants was depended on their oral
evidence. No documentary evidence was placed on record to
substantiate the fact that the land owned by them is an irrigated
land and they are entitled to the enhancement on the basis of any
method of calculation, hence in absence of any plausible evidence
on record, claimants are not entitled to enhancement of
compensation.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants has made a categorical submission that it is
an admitted fact on record that the mother of the claimants was the
owner of the adjoining land and in earlier land acquisition
proceeding for Sawangi Tank Project in the year 1982, the land was
acquired. In the said acquisition proceedings, by treating the land of
the claimants as irrigated land, awarded the compensation. So also,
once land has been held as an irrigated land, there is no reason for
the appellant to treat the land of respondents/claimants as dry crop
land.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also pointed
out that from the certified copies of the reference proceeding
decided by the Reference Court, particularly of the land, which was
acquired in the year 1981-1982, the compensation has been
granted of Rs.45,000/- for the irrigated land and Rs.30,000/- for
dry crop land. Hence, considering the said decision of the Reference
Court, the claimants are entitled to the enhancement of the
compensation.
7. In the background of submission made by both the
parties, I have perused the original record of the Land Acquisition
Case No.60/2000 arising out of land acquisition proceeding of year
1981-82. The perusal of the record reveals the fact that in the year
1981-1982, the land was acquired for Sawangi Tank Project. It is
also clear that the compensation has been awarded by the
Reference Court of Rs.45,000/- to the irrigated land and
Rs.30,000/- to the dry crop land. Therefore, I am, prima facie, of
the opinion that the claimants are entitled for the higher
compensation than what was awarded by the State Government in
the year 1988.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently
opposed the above said aspect and stated that it is for the claimants
to establish independently before the Reference Court, and then
only higher compensation can be awarded to the claimants.
According to the appellant, the only evidence available on record is
the statement on oath of the power of attorney holder on behalf of
the claimants. No other documentary evidence was produced on the
record to state that the land owned by the claimants is irrigated
land and they are entitled for higher compensation. Even 7/12
extract of the land was not placed on record to substantiate the
submission of the appellant. Hence, according to the appellant, the
enhancement awarded by the Reference Court is not justified in this
matter.
9. I do agree with the submission made by the appellant
that appellant failed to establish before the Reference Court by way
of any substantial evidence to demonstrate that the land, which is
in question, at the time of acquisition was in a cultivating position.
No documentary evidence was placed on record to show that the
yield was taken from the field and more importantly, the 7/12
extract, which is easily available documents was not even placed on
record. Therefore, prima facie, it is seen that the land in question
was not in a cultivated position. But at the same time, the fact
cannot be denied that at the time of acquisition of the adjoining
land owned by the mother in the acquisition proceedings, which
was initiated vide Land Acquisition Case No.19/47/1981-82
(25/LAQ/47/97-98), the compensation has been awarded by the
Reference Court by treating the adjoining land of mother of
claimants as an irrigated land.
10. The case of the respondents/claimants is also based
upon the documentary evidence and hence, there is no reason to
discard the fact that by treating the land of mother as an irrigated
land, compensation was awarded way back in the year 1986-87.
It is well settled position of law that if the sale instances are
not available on record, then the earlier sale instances or the
certified copy of the reference proceedings decided by the
competent Court of law can be accepted as a valid document to
determine the correct market value of the land. Therefore,
according to me, the compensation, which was awarded in the year
1988, can be a factor to be considered to determine the market
value of the land owned by the present respondents/claimants.
11. In the present case, admittedly, Rs.45,000/- per
hectare was granted to the land of the mother of claimants, which
was adjoining land. Therefore, by granting 10% increase per year
from 1988 till the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the claimants are entitled to the enhancement of
compensation. Accordingly, the amount comes Rs.1,28,388/- per
hectare.
12. The learned Counsel for the appellant fairly accepted
this proposition, in view of the fact that acquisition of land owned
by mother of claimants was never in dispute before the Reference
Court. So also, compensation awarded at that time is also not
disputed in the matter. All these facts are a matter of record.
13. It is well-settled position of law that market value fixed
for lands acquired for the same purpose, can be considered in
subsequent land acquisition proceedings of same project by
granting escalation at the rate of 10% per year. In this regard, there
is specific judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Special Land Acquisition Officer Mhada Vs. Zarine Ashrafali
reported in 2002 SCC Online Bom. 246, wherein it is observed in
paragraph No.8 as under:
"8. The said property C.S. No. 1784 is admeasuring
213 sq. mtrs. And built up area is 2213 sq. ft. which has
been conveyed by registered deed dated 20-5-1987 at
the rate of Rs. 993/- per sq. ft. Shri Maniyar has opined
in his valuation report that market price of the suit
property should be determined at the rate of Rs. 3000/-
per sq. ft. as on 24-12-1992, However, he has not given
any break up or justification for the rate of Rs. 3000/-
per sq. ft. except for stating that he has taken into
account three instances mentioned in the report,
situation, location and time factor. There can be no
difficulty in accepting the submission of the claimants
that they would be entitled for reasonable rise and/or
escalation. Reliance has been placed on an unreported
decision of this Court (supra) to contend that claimants
would be entitled for 15% p.a. rise on compound basis.
The submission is that the sale instance of C.S. No. 1784
be taken as the base price-and rise at the rate of 15%
per annum. on compound basis thereon be awarded.
Even if we were to accept this submission, it needs to be
pointed out that no such specific justification has been
suggested in the valuation report-except for vaguely
stating that taking into account the time factor the
valuation be determined. Be that as it may, even in the
examination-in-chief all that has been stated by P.W. 1
in para 12 is that he has considered 15% rise per
annum. from the date of market value till the date of
section 4 notification. However, in the next breath this
witness has improved the case and has stated that 15%
rise is on compound basis. Nevertheless, this case put
forth by the claimants in their evidence has gone
unchallenged, for the acquiring authority has not cross-
examined this witness with regard to that aspect. In that
sense, the claimants would be entitled to 15% rise p.a.
on compound basis on the rate in the comparable sale
instance dated 20-5-1987 from the date of the said
agreement till the date of section 4 notification on 24-
12-1992."
14. So also in the catena of judgments, it is time and again
observed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that it is the duty of the Court to grant just and fair
compensation to the claimants, whose land was acquired
compulsorily by the Government for any public purpose. Therefore,
the claimants cannot be deprived of their legal claim only because
the land is not in cultivation.
15. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the
compensation as stated above will be the fair and proper
compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, I passed the following order:
ORDER
i) The First Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference
Court dated 30.01.2010 in LAC No.60/2000 is modified to the
extent that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed and ordered to pay
the compensation to the claimants for the acquired land, at the rate
of Rs. 1,28,388/- per hectare along with all statutory benefits.
iii) Rest of the judgment and order dated 30.01.2010 in LAC
No.60/2000 is hereby confirmed.
iv) Needless to mention here that the amount already paid shall
be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
v) The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount to
the Registry of this Court within a period of four months.
vi) The claimants/respondents are entitled to withdraw the same
amount after depositing the same by the appellant.
The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No
order as to the costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/11/2025 16:51:50
