Bombay High Court
Bhagwanrao Gangaram Gite And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 24 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26125
FA-1252-2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 2017
1. Bhagwanrao Gangaram Gite,
Age : 72 years, Occu : Nil,
2. Narhari Gangaram Gite,
Age : 76 years, Occu : Nil,
3. Vyankatrao Gangaram Gite,
Age : 70 Years, Occu : Agril.,
4. Sau. Vijayabai Nathrao Gite,
Age : 60 years, Occu : Agril.,
5. Nathrao Gangaram Gite,
Age : 70 years, Occu : Agril.,
6. Gangaram Gitte
Since deceased through his
Legal heirs.
Anantrao Gangaram Gite,
Age : 62 years, Occu : Agril.,
All R/o. Talni,
Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. ... Appellants
[Orig. Claimants]
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
(M.I.) E.G.S. Beed. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mrs. D. S. Jape, APP for Respondent-State.
.....
FA-1252-2017
-2-
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 25.08.2025
Pronounced on : 24.09.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Original claimants who are owners of lands situated in gat no.
39 of village Poos are primarily dissatisfied by quantum of
compensation awarded by judgment and order passed by learned 3 rd
Ad hoc District Judge, Ambajogai dated 15.04.2008 in Land Reference
No. 177 of 1999 awarding compensation @ Rs.850/- per Are and also
awarding compensation for mango fruit bearing trees.
2. Basic facts giving rise to present appeal are that, on behalf of
respondent authority issued notification under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act") regarding acquisition of lands for
percolation tank at village Poos. After notice under Section 4 followed
by notice under Section 6, lands of several land-owners came to be
acquired on 10.07.1992 and this was followed by passing of award
under Section 11 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
awarding compensation @ Rs.375 per Are. Dissatisfied by the same,
present appellants preferred above Land Acquisition Reference and
sought enhanced compensation i.e. @ Rs2250/- per Are and sought
compensation for trees @ Rs.1000/-. Respondent acquiring body
FA-1252-2017
appeared and resisted the above Reference and thereby justified the
rate applied by SLAO and sought to dismiss the Reference. After
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
parties, learned Reference Court reached to a finding that
compensation awarded by SLAO is indeed inadequate and thereby
awarded enhanced rate of compensation @ Rs.850/- per Are and
Rs.1700/- for mango trees i.e. vide judgment dated 15.04.2008.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment, appellants have
preferred instant appeal seeking further enhancement by pressing into
service following grounds ;
Firstly, trial court failed to consider and appreciate the correct
and existing market value of the land acquired. Secondly, learned
trial court failed to consider existence of well in the acquired land and
land to be thus irrigated one. Thirdly, in spite of availability of
comparable sale instances and in spite of settled law being that,
highest exemplar be considered and applied in cases of compulsory
acquisition, learned Reference Court failed to apply settled law and
finally meager amount has been granted towards compensation for
mango trees in the acquired land.
FA-1252-2017
4. Apart from keeping written notes of arguments on record,
learned counsel would submit that learned Reference Court has failed
to appreciate the pleadings and documentary evidence in the form of
sale instances. He pointed out that the land acquired was in the
vicinity of area which had high potential and high market value.
Moreover, according to him, there was Revenue record in the form of
7/12 extract showing existence of well in the gat owned by appellant,
thus, demonstrating that land was irrigated one. That, amongst
several sale instances, unfortunately there is non consideration of sale
instance which was in proximity to the notification under Section 4 of
the Act. Even permissible rise per year since date of sale instance till
acquisition has also not been considered. Learned counsel seeks
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Meharawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot and others v. State of
Punjab AIR 2012 SC 2721 and seeks enhancement @ Rs.2250/- per
Are.
5. In answer to above, learned APP has also, apart from placing
written notes of arguments, made submissions that learned Reference
Court has correctly appreciated the available sale instances Exhibits
27 and 28. That, claimants had failed to lead positive evidence to
claim parity and benefits with other adjoining lands. She would point
FA-1252-2017
out that sale instance placed on record was of 1991 and hence it was
not comparable one. According to her, there was record before
Reference Court suggesting market value of lands ranging from
Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per Are and moreover, lands under sale
instances were small piece of land and therefore, Reference Court was
justified in applying arms chair Rule to ascertain market value which
came to around Rs.850/- par Are. She also supported the observations
of Hon'ble trial court in para 6 of the judgment and also justified
compensation awarded for trees and finally prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Heard both sides to their satisfaction. Studied their written
notes of arguments. As stated above, claimants are primarily
dissatisfied by non-consideration of existence of well and resultantly,
non-consideration of acquired land to be irrigated and secondly, non-
consideration of sale instances in proximity both, in time and place.
As stated above, heavy reliance is placed on Exhibit 28 dated
28.07.1993; 21.07.1994 and 28.08.1995 and Exhibit 27 dated
08.02.1991. In the written notes of arguments, calculations of area,
price and approximate market value has been reflected.
FA-1252-2017
7. Before touching the merits of above claim, it would be
appropriate to discuss settled legal position as regards to
determination of market value for awarding compensation. By series
of judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has held that
reliance on comparable sale instances is the best method. Market
price, is considered as the rate which a willing buyer is ready to
purchase from the vendor. In the judgment of Viluben Jhalejar
Contractor (D) by LRs v. State of Gujarat ; MANU/SC/0286/2005 :
AIR 2005 SCC 2214, wherein it has been observed as under
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount
of compensation for acquisition of land would be the
willingness of the informed buyer to offer the price there
for. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a
willing and informed buyer would offer would be different
in cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of
the property and in the cases wherein he is not.
19. xxx
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained
with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to
be identified having regard to the proximity from time
angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For
determining the market value of the land under
acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having
FA-1252-2017
regard to various positive and negative factors viz a viz the
land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
The positive and negative factors are as under:
Positive factors Negative factors
i) smallnes of size i) largeness of area
ii) proximity to a road ii) situation in the interior
at a distance from the
road
iii) frontage on a road iii) narrow strip of land
with very small frontage
compared to depth
iv) nearness to developed iv) lower level requiring the
area portion depressed to be filled up
v) regular shape developed v) remoteness from locality
vi) level vix-a-vis land under vi) some special
acquisition disadvantageous factors
which would deter a
purchaser
vii)special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it may
have some very special
advantage
The above positive and negative factors are reflected in Section
23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 15 of the Act
mandates that in determining the amount of compensation, the
Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23
and 24 of the Act i.e. dealt and produced in the above judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Viluben.
FA-1252-2017
8. Again, there are catena of judgments wherein it is held that
while applying comparable sales method, which is generally preferred
over other methods, certain factors are required to be fulfilled and
only on fulfillment of those factors, the compensation can be
awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The
factors which require consideration are as under :
1. Sale must be a genuine transaction.
2. Sale deed must be executed at the time proximate to the
date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act.
3. The land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the
acquired land.
4. The land covered by the sale must be similar to the acquired
land and lastly,
5. The size of the plot of land covered by the sales must be
comparable to the land acquired.
If above factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why sale
value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired
land.
It is also further settled position that it is open to the court to
proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what
is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached
with the acquired land.
FA-1252-2017
Above position has been clarified in the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Shaji Kuria Kose and another v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. And others reported in AIR 2001 SC 3341.
9. Bearing above settled position in mind, case in hand is dealt
and decided.
10. Here admittedly, appellant's land which is acquired by the
respondent State admeasures 617 R. Learned Reference Court has
awarded compensation for land at the rate of 850/- per R. Therefore,
when said area is placed in juxtaposition to the sale instances Exhibit
28 and Exhibit 27, it is apparent that there is difference between size
of the land acquired by the State and the size of land reflected in the
sale instance. On going through sale instance Exhibit 28 dated
28.07.1993, therein area admeasuring 5 Are seems to have been sold;
in sale instance dated 21.07.1994 area sold and transacted is 5½ Are
and in sale instance dated 28.09.1995 land transacted is 4 Are.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, for 5 Are, price
fetched was 3000/- per Are i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, for land
admeasuring 4 R price fetched was 3,800/- per R i.e. 1,52,000/- per
acre and for 5 R, price fetched was 6,250/- R i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- per
acre. Amongst the above sale instances, sale instance dated
FA-1252-2017
28.09.1995 is pressed into service on the ground that it is the most
proximate to the date of Notification of acquisition and hence, said
rate is pressed into service.
11. After going through the above sale instances, there is no
manner of doubt that said instances are of same village Poos wherein
land in question of the appellants was also located and has been
acquired. However, it is conspicuous and pertinent that the sizes/area
of land sold in those sale instances are not comparable to the size of
present appellant's land acquired. As stated above, area in above sale
instances is 5 Are and 4 Are respectively, whereas, area acquired of
appellant's land is 617 Are (6 Hectare 17 Are). Going by such figures,
in view of one of the essential factors which prevail in determination
i.e. "size", the same cannot be said to be comparable one. Exhibit 27,
which is of 08.02.1991 and is also relied as a comparable sale
instance, admeasures 1 Hectare and in alleged sale transaction, price
fetched was said to be Rs.1,000/- per Are i.e. Rs.40,000/- per Acre.
Therefore, going by the standards reflected in above rulings to be
followed and taking same into account while applying comparable
sale instance, sizes do not match.
12. Learned Reference Court in para 6 has observed that, there is
no positive evidence on behalf of claimants that land acquired has
FA-1252-2017
similar benefits, location and quality, which are other factors also to
be borne in mind while ascertaining the market value. It is further
observed and held that sale instance dated 08.02.1991 is also not
comparable, but why, has not been elaborated. It is further observed
that it appears from record that from the year 1991 to year 1993-94,
the market value of lands at village Poos was ranging between
Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per Are. But, considering the small pieces of
land under sale deeds and by applying Arms Chair rule, the market
value of acquired land on the date of Notification is held to be around
Rs.800/- to Rs.850/- per Are.
In same paragraph, again learned Reference Court has also held
that lands in all the references are bagayat lands as well is situated,
and then market value of bagayat land is held to be Rs.850/- per Are.
13. In the judgment of Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of
Madras AIR 1975 SC 1670, it has been observed that, appellate court
interferes not when the judgment under appeal is not right, but only
when it is shown to be wrong. It is further held that appellate courts
should interfere only when wrong principles are applied or if
authorities have omitted to take into consideration important points
affecting valuation.
FA-1252-2017
14. Going by above law, here, as stated above, sizes of the area of
lands in sale instances relied before Reference Court as well as this
Court are not comparable. It is found to be almost more than 100
times. Considering the very observations of learned Reference Court
about record showing market price from 1991 to 1993-94 in village
Poos to be somewhat between Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per R, applying
the standard of consideration of highest rate, in the considered
opinion of this Court, rate awarded ought to have been at least
Rs.2000/- per Are which seems to be just and proper. Hence, it would
be desirable to consider price of the land at the rate of Rs.2000/- per
Are.
15. Learned counsel for appellants has sought reliance on judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.)
Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2012 SC 2721
(supra), but in said case, there was material suggesting lands to be
having greater potential and being strategically located at a
commercial hub abutting to the main road surrounded by commercial
area and other infrastructures. Here, there is nothing to indicate why
sale instance dated 28.09.1995, which is pressed into service for
considering rate of Rs.6,250/- Are be considered and accordingly
compensation be granted.
FA-1252-2017
16. In view of the above discussion, compensation is required to be
assessed at Rs.2,000/- per Are which was also demanded by the
appellants before the Reference Court. Reference Court has erred in
awarding compensation to the appellants @ Rs.850/- per Are. Hence
claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation at Rs.1,150/- per
Are. In appeal, appellants have not questioned the rate awarded per
tree by the Reference Court and therefore, the same is not disturbed.
In the result, following order is passed :
ORDER
I. The First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
II. The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is
modified to the effect that claimants shall be paid enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,150/- per Are along with statutory
benefits on enhanced compensation.
III. Respondents to pay interest @ 6% p.a. to the claimants on
enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till
realization, excluding the period of delay caused in filing this First
Appeal.
IV. The First Appeal is disposed off in view of above terms.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
