Bombay High Court
Bhausaheb Balabhau Wankhade (Dead) ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 26 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9838
1 FA 167.18
sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.167 OF 2018
Bhausaheb Balabau Wankhade (Dead)
Aged about 38 years,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Mokh,
Tq. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal.
Through L.Rs. of Appellant.
1A. Smt. Ranju wd/o Bhausaheb Wankhade
Aged 58 years, Occ : Agriculturist,
R/o. Shendursani, Tq. Arni,
Distt. Yavatmal.
1B. Jyoti w/o Vijayrao Thakre,
Aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Harsul, Tq. Digras,
District-Yavatmal.
1C. Sandip s/o Bhausaheb Wankhade,
Aged 36 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Shendursani, Tq. Arni,
District-Yavatmal .. Appellants
.. Versus ..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Yavatmal.
2. The Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Arunavati Project, Benefited Zone,
Yavatmal, District-Yavatmal.
2 FA 167.18
4. The Executive Engineer,
Arunavati Project, Digras,
District-Yavatmal. .. Respondents
..........
Shri S.V. Ingole, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri H.D. Futane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate with Ms. M.V. Babhulkar, Advocate
Respondent No.4.
..........
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
RESERVED ON : 19.09.2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present appeal, appellant is challenging the
judgment passed by the reference court in Land Acquisition
Case No.518/2004 whereby according to the appellant the
adequate and sufficient compensation was not paid for the
acquisition of open plot and constructed house as per the rate
prevailing at the time of issuing Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. In brief, it is the submission of the appellant that he
owned and possessed residential property bearing House
No.274 and open plot. According to the appellant, the open
3 FA 167.18
plot was ad-measuring 140.90 per sq. meter and the total
construction was 122.60 per sq. meter. The property was
situated at Mokh, Taluka-Digras, District-Yavatmal (hereinafter
referred to as 'acquired property').
3. Undisputedly, the respondent no.1, by Notification
dated 8.6.1986, started land acquisition proceeding of village
Mokh for Arunavati Project at Digras. The appellant filed his
claim statement to the notice under Sections 4 and 9 of the
Land Acquisition Act and thereby demanded the compensation
at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter for plot area and total
Rs.1,000/- for constructed area.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26.3.1991
declared the final Award and thereby awarded the
compensation at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq. meter for plot area
and Rs.28,232/- for constructed area.
5. The appellant being dissatisfied due to inadequate
compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
filed the reference proceeding and thereby claimed the
4 FA 167.18
enhancement in the compensation awarded to him. The
appellant by his application claimed Rs.100/- per sq. meter
towards open plot area and Rs.2,57,460/- towards the cost of
constructed area.
6. Before the reference court, the appellant entered into
the witness box and established on the record that village Mokh
is having a big locality and thick population. The village was
having all facilities like High School, Grampanchayat, Health
Centre, weekly market etc. The village Mokh was/is situated at
7 k.m. from Tahsil Digras. It is also established that the house
of the appellant was built up in foundation of stone and cement
and the walls of the house were constructed by bricks and
cement. The teak wood was used to complete the wood work of
house and, therefore, considering all these amenities and built
up of the house, he is entitled for enhancement of compensation
at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter for land and Rs.2,57,460/-
for constructed area.
7. The appellant also examined the Civil Engineer, who
has personally visited the house and prepared the valuation
5 FA 167.18
report. According to the valuation report which was drawn by
him was proved and according to the said valuation report, the
value of the house was drawn Rs.2,43,274/-. This valuer was
cross-examined by the respondents. However, nothing is
brought on record that the valuation report prepared by him is
bogus or fabricated.
8. Appellant specifically brought to the notice of the
learned reference court the judgment and order passed by this
court in First Appeal No.301/2004. This court by considering
all pros and cons of the matter awarded the enhancement
compensation of Rs.100/- per sq. meter for area of construction
on the basis of valuation report. According to appellants
considering the market value of the open land, the reasonable
amount of Rs.100/- per sq. meter was claimed before the
reference court. However, the learned reference court, has
awarded only Rs.40/- per sq. meter for plot area and Rs.700/-
per sq. meter for built up area of the acquired property. Hence,
appellant constrained to approach before this court by way of
present appeal.
6 FA 167.18
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
stated that the reasoning recorded by the reference court are on
the basis of evidence and further by applying the judicial mind
in the matter. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by
the learned reference court. Therefore, it is not a fit case of
interference of this court in the matter.
10. I have heard both the counsel at length and perused
the record of the matter.
11. At the outset, appellant has relied upon the judgment
passed by this court dated 8.10.2021 whereby by common
judgment in First Appeal No.684/2009, 397/2009 and
331/2009, this court has occasion to decide identical issue in
respect of valuation of open plot and constructed area of the
same village i.e. Mokh, Taluka-Digras, District-Yavatmal. It is
also clear from the record that the proceeding in First Appeal
No.684/2009 along with other appeals decided by this court
were arising out of the same land acquisition proceeding and
the Notification dated 26.3.1991 issued by the Land Acquisition
Officer. Therefore, by applying rule of stare decisis, I am of the
7 FA 167.18
opinion that there is no reason to take any other view in the
matter.
12. It will be profitable to refer the findings recorded by
this court in First Appeal No.684/2009, particularly para 20,
which reads as under :
"20. In this context, it would be worthwhile to
note that for the similarly situated land, this Court in
the case of Shri Motiram s/o Bapurao Ingole (supra)
wherein the open plot area along with constructed
area of the appellant therein came to be acquired by
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act
dated 26/01/1989 situated at Village Layghavan,
Ta. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal, wherein this Court relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Prabhakar Raghunath Patil And Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 107, so also the
judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Gunwant Mahadeo Gulhane Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (First Appeal No. 1264/2013
decided on 15/06/2015) adjudicated the
compensation for constructed area @ Rs.1,000/- per
sq. mtr. against the valuation as has been done by the
expert witness therein @ Rs.1,716/- per sq.mtr."
13. It is not disputed in the present matter that the
appellant was having the open plot and the constructed house.
The same has been acquired by the government for the project.
As such, once this court has held that after considering the
entire legal position that identically situated villager is entitled
8 FA 167.18
for compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter towards
open plot and Rs.1,000/- per sq. meter towards constructed
house, there is no reason to take other view in the matter.
14. Irrespective of this finding, it is further important to
note that in the present matter the appellant has entered into
the witness box and proved the valuation of the acquired
property and also examined the expert in the matter. The
evidence of the expert was remain unchallenged in the matter.
According to me, there was no reason for the learned reference
court to distinguish the evidence of the valuer and reach to the
conclusion that the valuation done by him is not proper.
According to me, unless contradictory evidence is placed on
record by the acquiring body or at least something is placed on
record by way of cross-examination of the expert, there was no
reason to disbelieve the version of valuer. Hence, the findings
recorded by the learned reference court in this regard are not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
15. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion
that end of justice would meet if the appellant would be held
9 FA 167.18
entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per
sq. meter for open plot and Rs.1,000/- per sq. meter for
constructed area. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The judgment and award dated 22.11.2016
passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha in Land
Acquisition Case No.518/2004 is modified to the extent that the
appellant is entitled for the compensation at the rate of
Rs.100/- per sq. meter towards for open plot which is ad-
measuring 140.90 per sq. meter and Rs.1,000/- per sq. meter
towards constructed area which is ad-measuring 122.60 sq.
meter of Mouza Mokh, Taluka-Digras, District-Yavatmal along
with all statutory benefits.
(3) Respondents are directed to deposit the
enhance amount of compensation awarded by this court or
before Reference Court within a period of 6 months after due
intimation given to the claimants.
(4) Needless to state that the respondents are
entitled to deduct the amount which has already been paid to
the appellant-claimants.
(5) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/09/2025 18:13:39
