Bombay High Court

Devidas Munjaji Shinde vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 10 October, 2025

Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi

Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi

2025:BHC-AUG:28836-DB
                                                        1
                                                                      1995.2012FA(3).odt

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO.1995 OF 2012

                        .    Devidas S/o Munjaji Shinde
                             Age : 50 years, Occ : Agriculture,
                             R/o Dhanegaon, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
                                                                          ....APPELLANT
                                   VERSUS

                        1.   The State of Maharashtra
                             Through the District Collector,
                             Nanded.

                        2.   The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                             P.T. & M.I.W. No.2, Nanded

                        3.   The Executive Engineer,
                             Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
                             Work, Division No.2, Nanded.
                                                                     ....RESPONDENTS
                        ______________________________________________________
                        Mr. P.S. Dighe h/f Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for Appellant
                        Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
                        Mr. Amol G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                        ______________________________________________________


                                   CORAM         :      NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                        VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                   RESERVED ON              :   18th SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                   PRONOUNCED ON :              10th OCTOBER, 2025


                        JUDGMENT (PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J) :

1. By this appeal under Section 54 of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, claimant challenges judgment and

award dated 18.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge,

1995.2012FA(3).odt

Senior Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference

No.128/2002.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows :-

Land of the appellant/original claimant bearing

Gat No.94/3 admeasuring 01 H 08 R situated at village

Dhanegaon, Tq. & Dist.Nanded is acquired for the purpose of

construction of Water Treatment Plant for W.S.S. at village

Dhanegaon, Tq. & Dist.Nanded. The notification under Section

4 of the Act of 1984 was published in Government Gazette on

23.06.2000 and published in village Dhanegaon on

27.11.2000. The notification under Section 6 of the Act of

1984 was published on 01.02.2001 and the same was

published in the village Dhanegaon on 16.02.2001. The Land

Acquisition Officer passed award under Section 11 of the Act

of 1984 on 20.03.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.3,65,270/- per hector. Being

dissatisfied with the award, claimant preferred Land

Acquisition Reference No.128/2002.

3. The Reference Court partly allowed the Land

1995.2012FA(3).odt

Acquisition Reference, vide its judgment dated 18.04.2012.

The Reference Court considered the sale instances at Sr.

Nos.12 to 17 of the award and after averaging the price of the

sale instances, awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs.5,50,000/- per hector along with statutory benefits.

4. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation

awarded by the learned Reference Court, the claimant has

preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant-

claimant, learned A.G.P. for the State and learned Advocate for

acquiring body.

6. Learned Advocate for the claimant submits that

that land of the claimant is situated near Nanded -Hyderabad

State Highway on the western side, old Latur-Nanded

Highway on the southern side, industrial area of CIDCO and

MIDC on the northern side and on the east-north road leads to

CIDCO and MIDC unit of Nanded Town. The area is fully

developed as there are educational, commercial and industrial

1995.2012FA(3).odt

facilities and the Reference Court without considering this

evidence has considered the land of the claimant as

agricultural land.

He further submits that in the award, S.L.A.O. has

categorized the land of the claimant as of group "A" whereas

while enhancing the compensation, the Reference Court has

considered the sale deeds of the lands, which are categorized

in group "E", "B" and "D" and did not consider group "A" land.

He further submits that the Reference Court has not

considered the sale deeds placed on record by claimant

though the sale deeds were exhibited. Six sale instances are

relied by the claimant for the purpose of grant of enhanced

amount of compensation towards the acquired land of the

claimant. He would further submit that the land of the

claimant should have been considered as N.A. as he had

received the N.A. permission just before the possession of the

land was taken.

He would further submit that the State has neither

examined any witness nor adduced any documentary evidence

whereas the claimant has examined himself as PW-1 and one

Anil Vaijnath Fulari, the Valuer as PW-2 and has brought on

record sufficient evidence in support of his claim of

1995.2012FA(3).odt

enhancement of compensation.

7. Learned Advocate for the claimant by relying on

the judgment in the case of Mehrawal Khewadji Trust

(registered) Faridkot (supra) submits that while determining

the market value of the acquired land where there are several

sale exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is general

rule that highest exemplars should be accepted and that the

claimant is entitled for 10% increase per year and the

claimant is also entitled for the rate as given in the sale

instance at Sr. No.2 of table hereinbelow given in paragraph

no.16.

8. Learned Advocate to support his contentions has

placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Sabhia

Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) By L.Rs. and

others, (2012) 7 SCC 597, Special Land Acquisition Officer

and another Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714, Special

Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd.,

(2005) 9 SCC 759 and Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered),

Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 5

SCC 432.

1995.2012FA(3).odt

9. Per-contra, learned Advocate for respondent no.3

fairly submitted that no one had appeared for the acquiring

body in the reference and he is making his submissions on the

basis of the judgment. He would submit that the

compensation awarded by S.L.A.O. is proper, fair and

reasonable, for the reason that though the claimant was

having N.A. permission, he has not used the land for N.A.

purposes, therefore, the N.A. permission was cancelled.

He would further submit that the sale instances on

which the claimant has relied are not comparable as they are

of the lands which were situated far away from the acquired

land and the claimant had not produced any evidence to show

the exact distance in between the lands or any map showing

the actual distance and geographical location and nearby

developments, therefore, the rates mentioned in the sale

deeds are rightly not awarded by the Reference Court.

Learned Advocate would point out from the oral

evidence of claimant's cross-examination that the distance of

Nanded city and acquired land is about 4 to 5 kms,

Dhanegaon and Gopalchiwadi are different villages, MIDC is

in Gopalchiwadi area, there are three villages in between land

of the claimant and Vishnupuri.

1995.2012FA(3).odt

Learned Advocate also invited our attention to the oral

evidence of expert valuer's cross-examination that the distance

between acquired land and Hyderabad road is 600 feet and

distance between Vazirabad-Chikhalwadi and Dhanegaon is

about 6 to 7 kms.

10. In support of his submissions, Mr. Vasmatkar,

learned Advocate for respondent no.3 has placed reliance on

the judgments in the cases of Subhash Vs. Chief Engineer

(MIHAN), Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd.,

and others, 2021(2) ABR 659, Basant Kumar and others Vs.

Union of India (UOI) and others, (1996) 11 SC 542,

Rajashekar Sankappa Taradandi and others Vs. Asstt.

Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and others, AIR

1996 SC 3222 and Tarlochan Singh and others Vs. The State

of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 424.

11. The ratio of the above judgments is that the

burden is always on the claimant to prove the market value

and the Court should adopt realistic standards and pragmatic

approach in evaluation of the evidence.

1995.2012FA(3).odt

12 Learned A.G.P. has advanced the submissions on

the same lines, as has been advanced by the learned Advocate

for respondent no.3.

Learned AGP also invited our attention towards the oral

evidence of claimant as well as expert valuer regarding the

distance between the lands in sale instances relied by the

claimant and the acquired land as well as the distance

between the acquired land and the land in sale instances from

Vazirabad, which is 6 to 7 kms away from the acquired land.

Learned AGP would also point out that in the cross-

examination, the expert valuer has accepted that the sale

transaction dated 03.02.2000 of land survey no.94/3, plot

no.40 admeasuring 40 X 25 Feet situated at village Dhanegaon

purchased for Rs.91,000/- is between claimant and Dr.Ganesh

Madhavrao Kadam, who is claimant's brother-in-law.

Learned AGP in support of her contentions placed

reliance on the judgments in the cases Kanwar Singh and

others Vs. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136, Bhule Ram Vs.

Union of India (UOI) and others, (2014) 11 SCC 307 and G.

Narayan Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 10 SCC 607.

1995.2012FA(3).odt

13. The common ratio in all these judgments relied

by the learned AGP is that while deciding the market value,

the Court should consider "Arm Chain Rule", and geographical

situation of the land, existing use of the land, proximity to

National or State Highway of road and the developments in

the vicinity.

14. We have considered the submissions advanced by

learned Advocate for the claimant, learned A.G.P. and learned

Advocate for acquiring body and have also gone through the

record thoroughly. Respondent No.3 herein did not appear

before the Reference Court. The State though appeared in the

reference did not lead any independent oral evidence nor

produced any documentary evidence.

15. Admittedly, while passing the award the S.L.A.O.

has categorized claimant's land in group "A". However, while

awarding the compensation, the S.L.A.O. as well as Reference

Court have taken into consideration comparable sale instances

of group "B", "D" and "E" lands. No cogent reason is assigned

by the Reference Court as to why the comparable sale

1995.2012FA(3).odt

instances of group "A" lands though available in the award, are

not taken into consideration.

16. The Reference Court in paragraph no.7 of the

award has observed that the claimant has produced the

following sale instances :-

Sr. No. Date/Exhibit          Details
  1.        19.07.1999        At village Dhanegaon, Survey No.73 (80
              Exh.32          X 40 feet)
                              Sold for Rs.40,000/-
  2.        03.02.2000        Sale deed of Plot No.40 at village
             Exh. 33          Dhanegaon, Survey No.94/3 (40 X 25)
                              Sold for Rs. 91,000/-
  3.        03.02.2000        Sale deed of Plot No.8 at village
             Exh. 34          Dhanegaon, Survey No.94/3 (30 X 30)
                              Sold for Rs.82,000/-

  4.        13.11.2000        At village Chikhalwadi, Nanded-

                              feet)
                              Consideration amount of Rs.2 Lakhs
  5.        03.04.2000        At village Vajirabad-Home property
              Exh.36          bearing CTS no.3914
                              Consideration amount of Rs.4,96,000/-
  6.        11.07.2000        Sale deed of plot no.80 at village
              Exh.37          Vajirabad bearing Survey No.46 and 47,
                              CTS No.5933
                              (50 x 40 feet)
                              Consideration of Rs.6,02,000/-

17. The Reference Court has considered the above

sale deeds in paragraph 8 and observed that " on perusal of

1995.2012FA(3).odt

the said sale deeds, it can be seen that out of those sale deeds,

two sale deeds are of the same properties and remaining four

sale deeds are of the properties which are in heart of city i.e.

Vazirabad and Chikhalwadi area." Then has relied on the

admissions given by the claimant in the cross-examination

that the sale deed of Chikhalwadi is adjacent to the area of

post office Nanded and there is no comparison in respect of

prices of plots and his land and other sale deeds of Vazirabad

area of Nanded and it is further observed that the claimant

has not produced any independent sale deed of his own

village.

The Reference Court is justified in discarding the

sale instances at sr. nos.2 and 3 as they were executed by the

claimant himself. Reference Court has rightly discarded the

sale instances at sr. nos.4, 5 and 6 as those sale instances are

of the properties which are in heart of Nanded city and these

properties are at the distance of 6 to 7 kms from the acquired

land and also for the reason that the sale instances at Sr. Nos.4

and 6 are executed after Section 4 Notification.

However, without assigning any justifiable reason

the Reference Court has not considered the sale instance at Sr.

No.1, which is of a plot admeasuring 80 X 40 feet from survey

1995.2012FA(3).odt

no.73 of village Dhanegaon.

18. While arriving at the market value of the acquired

land the Reference Court has not considered the oral evidence

of valuer PW-2 wherein it has come that the acquired land is

adjacent to Hyderabad State Highway and situated at south-

east of Gaothan and is adjacent to Nanded-Waghala Municipal

Corporation. Village Dhanegaon is situated under sector of

Nanded - Waghala Municipal Corporation (Gaothan). The

acquired land is situated in developed area of Nanded and is

just adjacent to Nanded-Hyderabad State Highway on the

western side and old Latur-Nanded State Highway on the

southern side. It has also come in the evidence of PW-2 that

surrounding area is fully developed due to residential,

commercial, educational, industrial developments and

Government and Semi-Government offices. Thus civic

amenities like water supply, light, roads, medicines and

transportation are available near the acquired land. Similarly

Hospitals, Hotels and Holy Temple of Sikh Religion i.e. Sahib

Gurudawar are situated to the east-north side of the acquired

property. In addition to above, Tirupati Nagar, Government

Dairy Centre, Door-Darshan Transmutation Centre, Vasantrao

1995.2012FA(3).odt

Naik Mahavidhlaya, Rural Police Station, Office of the

Vishnupuri Project, Sahib Guru Govind Sing Research Cenre

and Engineering College are situated to the western side of

the acquired land, whereas Swami Ramanand Tirth

Marathwada University is situated on the southern side of

acquired land. It has also come in the evidence that adjacent

to the acquired land, Kaushallaya Nagar, Government

Fertilizer Industry, M.I.D.C. unit are functioning since last

more than thirty years with office and quarters of the officers

and sub-ordinates. Similarly, Nanded Co-operative Spinning

Mill, Madhuban High School, well furnished and luxurious

rest house of M.I.D.C. is established. To the south-west corner

of the acquired land, CIDCO unit and 133 K.V. Sub-Station

Centre are functioning with all facilities. Further more to the

northern side of the acquired land, Samarth Nagar, Police

colony, office of the cotton research centre, some residential

houses, hotels, minor work shops (small) are functioning and

are spread upto Godawari river.

19. The Reference Court has erred in not considering

the N.A. potentiality of the claimant's land by giving a reason

that though the claimant was having N.A. permission but since

1995.2012FA(3).odt

it was not used as N.A. land within one year of its permission,

so it was cancelled by the authorities. It was also not

considered as N.A. land as S.L.A.O. in his award at Exhibit-29

has assessed the land as agricultural land for the reason that

the claimant did not use the N.A. permission. While giving

these reasons, the Reference Court has lost sight of the fact

that the claimant received N.A. permission on 13.12.1999 and

possession of his land was taken on 25.01.2000. Therefore,

the claimant had no occasion to utilize the land for N.A.

purpose. Grant of N.A. permission in favour of claimant is

sufficient to prove the N.A. potential of the acquired land. The

claimant had sold the plots at Exhibit-33 and 34 from the

same survey number as N.A. plots, which shows that the

acquired land is having N.A. potential. The Reference Court

has totally overlooked the fact that the acquired land is having

N.A. potential and surrounding area is developed area and the

land is acquired for providing amenities to the nearby areas.

20. In the entire judgment and award, there is no

discussion of all these aspects regarding nearby developments

and about N.A. potentiality. The Reference Court ought to

have taken into consideration these aspects while arriving at

1995.2012FA(3).odt

valuation of the acquired land. Instead, the Reference Court

has erroneously adopted the method of taking out average

price of lands from Sr. Nos.12 to 17 of the award.

21. Taking into consideration the above evidence we

are of the view that land acquired has N.A. potential, and it

should be valued accordingly. The Reference Court has

committed an error in not considering the sale instance at Sr.

No. 1, which is of N.A. land at Exhibit-32 dated 19.07.1999.

There is no evidence brought on record by the State to show

that the sale instance at Exhibit-32 is not a bonafide

transaction.

22. As per sale instance at sr. no.1/Exhibit-32 dated

19.07.1999 land out of survey no.73 at village Dhanegaon

admeasuring 80 X 40 feet (3200 Sq. Feet) was sold for

consideration of Rs.40,000/- (i.e. Rs. 12.5 per Sq. Feet).

Adding 10% escalation for one year, the rate comes to

Rs.13.75 per sq. feet. Therefore, claimant is entitled for

compensation at the rate of Rs.13.75/- per sq. feet. As the

comparable sale instance is of smaller portion and large

portion of land admeasuring 1 H 8 R belonging to the

1995.2012FA(3).odt

claimant is acquired, according to us, deduction of 1/3rd

amount would be reasonable deduction.

23. For the aforestated reasons, we pass the following

order :-

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The judgment and award dated 18.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference No.128/2002 is modified to the effect that the claimant/appellant is held entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.13.75 per sq. feet. After deducting 1/3rd amount out of the total compensation amount payable to the claimant and after deducting the compensation already received by the claimant, balance amount be paid to the claimant on payment of court fees as per rules.