Bombay High Court
The G.M.I.D.C. Thr The Exe Engineer ... vs Pralhad Namdev Thombre And Others on 24 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26185
1 FA 2201-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2201 OF 2016
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Through the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,
Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed .. Appellant
Versus
1. Shrikrishna s/o Laxman Gholve,
Age : 30 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
2. Dattatray s/o Laxman Gholve,
Died through L.Rs.
2-A) Pragati Dattatraya Gholve
Age : 34 years, Occu. : Household.
2-B) Tanvi D/o Dattatraya Gholve
Age : 13 years, Occu. : Education.
2-C) Arnav s/o Dattatraya Gholve
Age : 9 years, Occu. : Education.
(L.Rs. No. 2B and 2C are minor
Under guardianship of their real
mother i.e. Respondent No. 2-A)
3. Sheshabai Laxman Gholve,
Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
All R/o. Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Beed. .. Respondents
1 of 18
2 FA 2201-2016.odt
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11160 OF 2016
IN FA/2201/2016
Shrikrishna S/o Laxman Gholve and others .. Applicants
Versus
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through
the Executive Engineer and another .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9000 OF 2018
IN FA/2201/2016
Shrikrishna s/o Laxman Gholve and others .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2025
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Through the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,
Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed .. Appellant
Versus
1. Dattatray s/o Wamanrao Bhange,
Age : 54 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
R/o. Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Beed. .. Respondents
2 of 18
3 FA 2201-2016.odt
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1286 OF 2016
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Through the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,
Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed .. Appellant
Versus
1. Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre,
Age : 56 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
2. Uddhav s/o Namdev Thombre,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
3. Suresh s/o Namdev Thombre,
Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
4. Arun Namdeo Thombare (Died)
Through L.Rs.
4-A) Kamal w/o Arun Thombare
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Household.
4-B) Sushma d/o Arun Thombare @
Rajmati Anant Gholve
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Household.
4-C) Mahadeo s/o Arun Thombare
Age : 33 years, Occu. : Agri.
4-D) Pushpa Ashok Kedar
Age : 29 years, Occu. : Housewife.
4-E) Alka Laxman Dhas
Age : 26 years, Occu. : Housewife.
4-F) Sahdev s/o Arun Thombare
Age : 24 years, Occu. : Agri.
3 of 18
4 FA 2201-2016.odt
All R/o Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
5. Rajendra s/o Uddhav Thombre,
Minor U/G of Mother
Kushivartabai w/o Uddhav Thombre
Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
6. Mahadeo s/o Arun Thombre,
Minor U/G of Mother
Kamalbai w/o Arun Thombre
Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
All R/o. : Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
7. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Beed. .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8215 OF 2018
IN FA/1286/2016
Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre and others .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2199 OF 2016
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Through the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,
Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed .. Appellant
Versus
1. Bhaskar s/o Namdeo Gholve,
Age : Major, Occu. : Agriculture.
4 of 18
5 FA 2201-2016.odt
2. Prabhakar s/o Namdeo Gholve,
Age : Major, Occu. : Agriculture.
3. Shubham s/o Dinkar Gholve,
Minor U/G of Mother
Nandabai w/o Dinkar Gholve
Age : Major, Occu. : Agriculture.
R/o. Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Beed. .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9005 OF 2018
IN FA/2199/2016
Bhaskar s/o Namdeo Gholve and others .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2202 OF 2016
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Through the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,
Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed .. Appellant
Versus
1. Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre,
Age : 56 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
2. Uddhav s/o Namdev Thombre,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
5 of 18
6 FA 2201-2016.odt
3. Suresh s/o Namdev Thombre,
Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
4. Arun Namdeo Thombare (Died)
Through L.Rs.
4-A) Kamal w/o Arun Thombare
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Household.
4-B) Sushma d/o Arun Thombare @
Rajmati Anant Gholve
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Household.
4-C) Mahadeo s/o Arun Thombare
Age : 33 years, Occu. : Agri.
4-D) Pushpa Ashok Kedar
Age : 29 years, Occu. : Housewife.
4-E) Alka Laxman Dhas
Age : 26 years, Occu. : Housewife.
4-F) Sahdev s/o Arun Thombare
Age : 24 years, Occu. : Agri.
All R/o Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
5. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Beed. .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 OF 2018
IN FA/2202/2016
Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre and others .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
6 of 18
7 FA 2201-2016.odt
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2203 OF 2016
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Through the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,
Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed .. Appellant
Versus
1. Dattatray s/o Dnyanoba Gholve,
Age : 39 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
2. Lankabai w/o Dnyanoba Gholve,
Age : 74 years, Occu. : Agriculture.
Both R/o. : Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Beed. .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9002 OF 2018
IN FA/2203/2016
Dattatraya s/o Dnyanoba Gholve and another .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Appellants.
Smt. A. S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. D. R. Jaybhar, Advocate for Respondents - claimants.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Date on which reserved for judgment : 23rd July, 2025.
Date on which judgment pronounced : 24th September, 2025.
7 of 18
8 FA 2201-2016.odt
JUDGMENT :
-
. All these appeals are arising out of common judgment and
award passed by the learned Reference court and are being taken
up together. The judgment and award impugned in these appeals
is passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge - 2, Ambajogai
dated 08.01.2014 in respective L.A.Rs. filed by the present
respondents - original claimants. By way of impugned judgment
and award the learned Trial Judge has enhanced the amount of
compensation towards lands and the trees as given in the chart
below :
LAR No. Acquired Property Net Payable
Land Trees Rs.
Land Total area Name of tree No. of
Gat/Sy. No. acquired H - trees
R.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
128 of 2010 33 4-01
Mango 9 3025477
34 2-78 -
35 0-26
36 0-12
123 of 2010 34 0-60
Jujube 3 1604842
30/10 0-10
22/2B 0-89
8 of 18
9 FA 2201-2016.odt
126 of 2010 7/A 0-40 180660
apple
16 0-14
62 of 2013 10E Teak wood 18 36000
63 of 2013 4/1 0-37 95460
2. The acquiring body is thus before this Court mainly
challenging the enhancement in the amount of compensation and
on the ground that the learned Trial Judge has committed an error
in awarding compensation towards trees.
3. The facts in short are that, the lands of the claimants came
to be acquired for construction of percolation tank. The lands are
taken from village Sarni, Taluka Kaij, District Beed. The award
came to be passed on 26.12.2006 vide acquisition proceeding No.
LNQ/CR/2/2003. Possession was already taken on 19.07.2003.
The total land acquired is 97 H and 15 R. The learned S.L.A.O.
awarded the rate of Rs. 650, 750, 920 and 1015 per R depending
upon the classification of the lands.
4. The claimants being aggrieved by the rate awarded by the
9 of 18
10 FA 2201-2016.odt
learned S.L.A.O. filed references under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. It is the case of the claimants that, the
compensation is not fair and adequate. The learned S.L.A.O. has
wrongly done classification of the lands. The lands would fetch
the price at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per R i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- per H.
and the compensation for trees as per the report submitted by
Horticulture expert. Common evidence was laid in land reference
No. 128/2010. They produced sale instances at Exh. 21 to 24. In
support of their claim towards trees compensation they examined
Government approved valuer. On the basis of evidence and
material on record the learned Reference Court came to
conclusion that the compensation awarded by the learned S.L.A.O.
is grossly inadequate and granted compensation at the enhanced
rate. The rate awarded by the learned Reference Court is
Rs. 3500/- per R. The learned Court further directed to grant the
interest under sections 23 (1)(a), 28 and 34 from the date of
possession i.e. from 19.07.2003.
5. The learned advocate Mr. Gaikwad for the appellants
vehemently argued that, the learned Reference Court has erred in
enhancing the amount of compensation. The valuer's report is
10 of 18
11 FA 2201-2016.odt
wrongly accepted by the Court. The rate of lands was determined
by considering the lands to be orchard lands and thus, there was
no question of granting separate compensation towards trees in
view of judgment in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) By L.Rs.
And Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 AIR SCW
5749. The multiplier is also wrongly applied. The capitalization is
wrongly done. The learned Reference Court has committed an
error in granting interest from the date of possession which should
have been granted from the date of award i.e. 26.12.2006 in view
of the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J 457. He further
submits that, the valuation expert admitted that, while calculating
the price of the tress, he used Mirams table. The valuer's report is
prepared on the basis of visit to the land. While giving visit he did
not issue a notice to the acquiring body. The learned advocate
invited attention of this Court that even the date of notification
under section 4 is wrongly taken as 09.12.2004 which is in fact
23.03.2005. He submits that, the valuation of the land ought to
have been Rs. 3000/- per R which is wrongly granted Rs. 3500/-
per R. He thus prays that the impugned judgment and award
11 of 18
12 FA 2201-2016.odt
deserves to be quashed and set aside by confirming the rate
awarded by the learned S.L.A.O. The interest under section 23(1)
(a), 28 and 34 be given from the date of award and not from the
date of possession.
6. The learned advocate for the respondents - original
claimants vehemently argued that, the learned Reference Court
has rightly granted the rate. The learned S.L.A.O. had arbitrarily
decided the rate of the land without taking into consideration the
rate prevalent in the market in the village at the relevant time.
The sale instances show that the land was sold at much higher
rate i.e. Rs. 4000/- per R. Considering that, the rate should be
granted by adding 10% enhancement each year. He justifies the
Government Valuer's report. So far as trees are concerned, he
submits that, some of the first appeals arising out of the same
acquisition proceedings have already been dismissed by
confirming the judgment of the learned Reference Court. He
submits that, the learned Court has rightly granted statutory
benefits from the date of possession. The claimants have lost their
land from the date of possession and are deprived the income of
the land from the said date by relying upon various judgments
12 of 18
13 FA 2201-2016.odt
which will be discussed in this judgment.
7. The learned advocate for the appellants relies upon the
judgment in the case of Navanath & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2009 (4) AIR Bom R 492. Much emphasis are given
by the learned advocate for the appellants on this judgment with
respect to his submission about determination of compensation of
the lands on the basis of capitalization in respect of the fruit
bearing tress.
8. His further reliance is on the judgment in the case of Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappa
reported in AIR 1984 SC 774. In this judgment also, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has considered that the multiplier to be adopted for
the fruit bearing trees should be eight.
9. The first point about the rate, the learned Trial Court
considered Exh. 21, 22, 23 and 24 i.e. sale instances relied upon
by the parties. The sale deed Exh. 21 is in respect of 34 R land
that was sold for Rs. 1,25,000/-. It is dated 04.09.2002. The rate
thus comes to Rs. 3676/- per R. The second sale instance is Exh.
13 of 18
14 FA 2201-2016.odt
22 wherein, 20 R land was sold for an amount of Rs. 80,000/-.
The rate come to Rs. 4000/- per R. The said sale deed is dated
16.02.2004. Both the sale instances are from the same village.
This Court finds that, the learned Court while deciding the
references has rightly considered the value of the land to be
Rs. 3500/- per R. It is considered that the sale instances are in
respect of small pieces of lands and therefore, the consideration
was more. In fact, this Court finds that, if the date of award is
seen, it is in 2006. The sale instance Exh. 22 is of February 2004.
If 10% rise is given every year, then considering that there is gap
of 1.5 years between the sale transaction Exh. 22 and the award.
There ought to have been increase in the value to the extent of
15% as held in the judgment in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji
Trust (Regd.) Faridkot and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721.
10. In the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that, when there are multiple sale instances,
then highest comparable exemplar should be considered. It is
held that the method of drawing average of various sale deeds is
14 of 18
15 FA 2201-2016.odt
not to be adopted. In the present case, the highest rate shown is
Rs. 4000/- per R. This Court thus finds that, the rate should be
taken as Rs. 4000/- per R.
11. Somewhat similar view is taken in the judgment in the case
of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2012 SC 481. The rate was
reduced of the compensation considering the average value of sale
instances. It is held that, no reduction of market value could have
been done.
12. The case of Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar Vs. Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur and Ors. reported in
AIR 2021 SC 4393 is also in respect of granting the enhancement
considering the higher value of the sale instances.
13. In the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra (supra), the Full Bench
of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, the Act does not require
land owner to specify the amount claimed if the objection to the
award is that it is not fair or inadequate. It is the duty of the
Court to grant fair and adequate compensation. Even if the
15 of 18
16 FA 2201-2016.odt
amount is not stated or higher amount is claimed, the Court still
has the power to enhance the amount more than the amount
claimed by the claimant.
14. So far as interest from the date of award or from the date of
possession is concerned, the respondents relied upon the
judgment in the case of Balwan Singh and Ors. Vs. Land
Acquisition Collector and Anr. reported in AIR 2016 SC 1565. [ It
is held that, the claimant shall be entitled to additional interest by
way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of
dispossession till the date of notification under section 4(1) of the
Act.
15. In the case of Rajiv & Ors. Vs. The Ste of Punjab & Ors. in
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25544/2019, in the said case, the
High Court had reduced the interest on compensation granted by
the learned Reference Court to 6%. The Hon'ble Apex Court held
that, there is no justification to reduce the rate of interest to 6%
from the date of legal possession and consequently, the order of
the High Court was set aside.
16 of 18
17 FA 2201-2016.odt
16. Thus, major points are to be considered in this case are
about the rate awarded by the learned Reference Court, the
multiplier to be applied for fruit bearing trees and thirdly, the date
from which the interest under sections 23(1)(a), 28 and 34 of the
Act is to be awarded.
17. In view of the judgments in the cases of Mehrawal Khewaji
Trust (supra) and Chindha Fakira Patil (supra), this Court has not
hesitation in accepting that the fair and adequate compensation to
be Rs. 4000/- per R plus 15% rise at the rate of Rs. 10% rise per
year would be Rs. 4600/-. The proper rate would be Rs. 4600/-
per R. So far as interest part is concerned, now, it is well settled in
view of judgment in the case of Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra), the
claimants are entitled to receive interest from the date of award
and not from the date of possession. So far as this is concerned,
the Court accepts the submission of the learned advocate Mr.
Gaikwad for the appellants that the claimants shall be entitled to
receive the interest from the date of award and not from the date
of possession.
18. In view of the judgment in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra
17 of 18
18 FA 2201-2016.odt
(supra), this Court does not find any substance in the submission
of the appellants that the separate compensation need not be paid
towards trees. The Court, therefore, finds that the learned
Reference Court is right to that extent. In view of the same,
following order :
ORDER
(I) The first appeals stand partly allowed.
(II) The claimants shall be entitled to receive the compensation
at the rate of Rs. 4600/- per R. The claimants shall be entitled to
interest on the amount from the date of award i.e. 26.12.2006.
(III) Fresh award be passed. The amount which is deposited in
this Court by the appellants is permitted to be withdrawn by the
claimants. The enhanced amount be deposited in this Court
within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today.
(IV) In view of disposal of first appeals, all civil applications also
stand disposed of.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.
18 of 18
