Bombay High Court
Nanded-Waghala City Municipal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Collector, ... on 17 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31451
1 FA.1684-21 & ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1684 OF 2021
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9043 OF 2021
IN FA/1684/2021
Nanded-Waghala City Municipal
Corporation, Nanded,
District Nanded,
Through its Commissioner. ... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Nanded.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P. T. and M.I.W-2, Nanded.
3. Mahajan Noroba Solanke,
(Died through L.Rs.)
Prakash S/o Mahajan Solanke,
Age : 66 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Vajegaon, Tal & Dist. Nanded. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1446 OF 2022
Mahajan Noroba Solanke,
(Died through L.Rs.)
Prakash S/o Mahajan Solanke,
Age : 59 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Vajegaon, Tal & Dist. Nanded. ... Appellant.
Versus
1. Nanded-Waghala City Municipal
Corporation, Nanded, District Nanded,
Through its Commissioner.
2 FA.1684-21 & ors.odt
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the District Collector,
Nanded.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P. T. and M.I.W-2, Nanded. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for Acquiring Body : Mr. R. K. Ingole.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. N. R. Dayma.
Advocate for Respondent/Claimant : Mr. S. R. Shirsat.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
RESERVED ON : 11.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.11.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard both the sides finally with their consent.
2. First Appeal No.1684 of 2021 is preferred by acquiring
body/Municipal Corporation, Nanded and First Appeal
No.1446 of 2022 is preferred by original claimant challenging
judgment and award dated 03.07.2020 passed in LAR.No.16 of
2011. For the sake of convenience, paper book of First Appeal
No.1684 of 2021 is referred to.
3. The claimant's land measuring 5 R. from Survey
No.6/2/1 was acquired for the purpose of J.N.N.U.R.M.
3 FA.1684-21 & ors.odt
treatment plant, situated at Elechpur. The notification under
Section 4(1) was published on 04.12.2008. Award was passed
on 22.07.2010. SLAO awarded of Rs.3,600/- per R. Against
that, LAR.No.16 of 2011 was preferred. The rate was enhanced
to Rs.60,000/- per R. The enhancement is questioned.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/acquiring body
submits that the enhancement is perverse and arbitrary. It is
submitted that market value has been calculated against the
settled norms. The sale instance at Exh.25 is vulnerable.
Considering the nature and potentiality of the land under
acquisition, compensation awarded to the claimant is unjust
and unreasonable.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Shirsat for the claimant
submits that Reference Court did not properly appreciated the
market value in the wake of sale transaction at Exh.25. It
pertains that deduction of 70 % from the valuation of sale
exemplar is patently illegal and unreasonable. It is submitted
that Reference Court failed to appreciate the nature and
potential of the land under acquisition. It was closer to State
Highway and akin to Survey No.2/2. My attention is adverted
4 FA.1684-21 & ors.odt
to survey map at Exh.30. It is vehemently submitted that
appellants are entitled to rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per R.
6. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have
gone through the record. Only sale instance produced in the
matter is Exh.25, registered sale deed dated 10.03.2008. It
pertains to Gut No.2/2 of Elechpur and to the extent of 2 R.
land. The rate quoted in the sale deed is Rs.2,00,000/- per R.
The sale instance is within one year preceding the notification
under Section 4 of the Act. The recitals of the sale deed
indicates that it was an agricultural land.
7. With the assistance of both the counsels, I have gone
through record and proceedings. A survey map at Exh.30
indicates that Survey No.2 is abetting State Highway which is
the subject matter of Exh.25. Survey No.6 is closer to State
Highway but not abetting the same. The frontage which is
available to survey No.2 is not available to Survey No.6 but the
lands are from the same vicinity. The land under acquisition is
also agricultural land.
8. The claimant has led oral evidence. No oral evidence
was adduced by the acquiring body. It reveals that the sale
5 FA.1684-21 & ors.odt
exemplar can be made applicable for determining the rate and
the compensation. The vicinity in which the land is located is
developed one having commercial, manufacturing activities
and the residential houses. M.I.D.C. of Nanded is located at
about 01 k.m. The land under acquisition is bigger in size than
the land shown in Exh.25. It would definitely fetch more price
than determined by the Reference Court.
9. The Reference Court has deducted 70% from the rate of
sale deed at Exh.25 to arrive at Rs.60,000/- per R. It is
incomprehensible as to on what basis the deduction is made to
the extent of 70%. I find that claimant's land under acquisition
may not fetch the price and the rate as that of sale exemplar
considering the location and the frontage, but deduction of
70% is arbitrary and extremely on a lower side. In the absence
of any contra evidence, I am inclined to hold that deduction of
50% is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the claimant is
entitled to have the compensation and the enhancement. I find
no merit in the appeal filed by the acquiring body. I, therefore
pass the following order :
6 FA.1684-21 & ors.odt
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.1648 of 2021 is dismissed.
(ii) First Appeal No.1446 of 2022 is partly allowed.
(iii) Save and except the substitution of the rate to the
tune of Rs.1,00,000/- per R. for land Survey
No.6/2/1 measuring 5 R. situated at Elechpur,
Taluka and District Nanded, the rest of the award
of the Reference Court in LAR.No.16 of 2011 is
maintained.
(iv) Appellant in First Appeal No.1446 of 2022 shall be
entitled to enhanced compensation as referred
above.
(v) Award be drawn accordingly.
(vi) In view of disposal of first appeals, pending civil
application does not survive. Civil application as
such is disposed of.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
...
vmk/-
