Bombay High Court
Maroti Khanduji Ingole vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 10 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8953
1 fa451.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.451/2018
Maroti Khanduji Ingole,
aged about 50 years, Occ.
Agriculturist R/o. Kurli, Tq.
Umarkhed, Distt. Yavatmal. ... Appellant
- Versus -
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Collector, Yavatmal.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Push Project, Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
District Yavatmal.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Department,
through its Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad, Tah.
Pusad, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. P. P. Sarise, Advocate h/f Mr. Rahul J. Shinde, Advocate for
the appellant.
Mrs. K. H. Bhondge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr. Vinay V. Dahat, Advocate for respondent No.3.
----------------
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 22.08.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 10.09.2025.
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the appellant, who is original claimant,
seeks further enhancement of compensation for acquisition of his
2 fa451.2018
agricultural land situated in village Kurali, Tahsil Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal. His land was acquired for Amadapur Irrigation
Project.
2. The Reference Court, by its common judgment and
award dated 29.8.2008 in L.A.C. No.266/2002 partly allowed
the claim but awarded compensation at a rate much lower than
what the appellant claimed to be the fair market value.
3. The appellant contends that the impugned award is
contrary to Sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 as well as the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and High Courts. It is submitted that the compensation
granted to the appellant does not represent the true market value
of the acquired land.
4. Reliance is placed upon the oral evidence of the
claimants (Exh.No.21 and Exh.No.22) and documentary
evidence in the form of sale deeds (Exh. Nos.23, 24 and 25)
3 fa451.2018
which demonstrate that the market value of similar land was not
less than Rs.1,75,000/- per hectare at the relevant time.
5. It is urged by the learned Advocate for appellant that
the Reference Court failed to award just compensation for the
fruit-bearing trees and other agricultural produce standing on the
acquired land, thereby causing further loss to the claimant.
6. It is submitted that village Kurali is close to the
Taluka headquarters at Umarkhed and lies along the
Nanded-Nagpur National Highway. Considering the location
and rising land values, the fair market rate ought to have been
determined at Rs.1,75,000/- per hectare.
7. The appellant has also relied upon Order 41 Rule 33
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 thereby contending that this
Court has wide powers to mould the relief in order to grant
complete justice to the land owners in compulsory acquisition of
land.
4 fa451.2018
8. It is emphasized that the respondents, being
custodians of the acquisition records, failed to produce the
relevant documents to rebut the appellant's evidence. In the
absence of such rebuttal, the Reference Court ought to have
accepted the appellant's version and evidence in toto.
9. The learned Advocate for the appellant further argued
that the Reference Court did not take judicial notice of the
steadily increasing land prices. The low compensation awarded
has deprived the claimant of the ability to purchase equivalent
land elsewhere, causing grave prejudice to him.
10. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhag Singh and others Vs. Union
Territory of Chandigarh reported in AIR 1985 SC 1576 in which
it is observed that where the land is acquired under the Land
Acquisition Case, it would not be fair and just to deprive the
holder of his land without payment of true market value when the
law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market
5 fa451.2018
value. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the
citizens.
11. In view of the above, the appellant pray that the
instant appeal be allowed by modifying the impugned common
award and the market value of the acquired land be fixed at
Rs.1,75,000/- per hectare along with all statutory benefits under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
12. Heard both sides and perused the record.
13. It is pointed out that in the present case land
belonging to the appellant was situated in village Kurali, Tahsil
Umarkhed, District Yavatmal and was acquired for Amadapur
Irrigation Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the present case on
21.8.1997. For the land situated in the same village i.e. Kurali
land owners were granted compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/-
per hector for dry-crop land.
6 fa451.2018
14. Learned Advocate for the appellant invited attention
of this Court to the judgment and order dated 9.7.2019 passed in
First Appeal No.479/2015 (Ganesh Dattatray Bhusale through
L.Rs. Sulochana Ganesh Bhusale and others V/s. The State of
Maharashtra and others).
15. Learned Advocate for the appellant further relied
upon the order of this Court passed in First Appeal No.450/2018
(Kondabai Khanduji Ingole V/s. The State of Maharashtra and
others) wherein this Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs.83,000/- per hector for dry-crop land on the basis of earlier
judgment passed by this Court in the context of similarly situated
lands of the village Kurali.
16. The above contentions raised on behalf of appellant
are not disputed by the respondents. Accordingly, it is found that
the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation in the present
case also.
17. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed.
7 fa451.2018
The respondents are directed to pay enhanced
compensation to the appellant for acquisition of his land at village
Kurali at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hector along with all
statutory benefits.
Insofar as the interest is concerned, vide order dated
23.1.2018 passed by this Court, delay of 2111 days in filing the
appeal was condoned. The appellant shall not be entitled to
interest for the aforesaid period of delay of 2111 days.
Accordingly, the respondents shall deposit the
amount payable to the appellant in terms of the order passed
today in this appeal within a period of six months from today.
Upon such deposit of amount, the appellant shall be entitled to
withdraw the same immediately.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
