[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sudhakar S/O Shankarrao Tembhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 7 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:262
1 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2011
APPELLANTS : 1. Harichand s/o Rambhau Kshirsagar,
Aged about 35 years,
Occu. Agriculturist.
2. Dhanraj S/o Rambhau Kshirsagar,
Aged about 31 years,
Occu. Agriculturist,
Both R/o Loni, Tq. Warud,
Distt. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
(On R. A.) Through Collector, Amravati.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (Local Sector),
Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2013
APPELLANTS : 1. Waman s/o Sahadeorao Rewaskar,
Aged about 53 years,
Occu. Agriculturist, R/o Loni,
Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati.
2. Arun s/o Ramkrushnaji Gorade,
Aged about 47 years,
Occu. Service, R/o Shendurjana Ghat,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Amravati.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
2 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (Local Sector),
Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2013
APPELLANT : Sudhakar s/o Shankarrao Tembhe,
Aged about 48 years,
Occu. Agriculturist, R/o Loni,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Amravati.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division (Local Sector),
Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for appellants.
Ms. D. I. Charlewar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 07/01/2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present appeals, the challenge is made by the
original land owners to the Judgment and order passed by the
Reference Court in their respective Reference Proceedings. All the
three appeals are arising out of the same land acquisition
proceedings and of the same village. So also, the sale instances
relied upon therein are also identical. Hence, considering the fact
3 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
that they are identical in nature, all these three matters are taken
to be decided by common order.
2. In First Appeal No.149/2011, the appellants are owners
and were in possession of the land bearing Survey No.74/1-B
admeasuring 1 Hectare 62 R of Mouza Loni, Tq. Warud, Dist.
Amravati.
3. In First Appeal No.294/2013, the appellants are owners
and were in possession of land bearing Survey No.99/3
admeasuring 1 Hectare 22 R Potkharab 8 R situated at Mouza
Loni, Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati.
4. In First Appeal No.295/2013, the appellant is owner
and was in possession of land bearing Survey No.123/4
admeasuring 1 Hectare 11 R situated at Mouza Loni, Tq. Warud,
Dist. Amravati.
5. The respondents for the purpose of construction of
Minor Irrigation Dam at Loni, issued Notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 31/07/2003. In pursuance of
the same, the abovesaid lands owned by the respective appellants
were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the land
4 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
acquisition proceedings after considering the respective lands, a
meagre amount of compensation has been awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer to the respective appellants.
6. The appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation
amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer have preferred an
independent Reference by invoking the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act.
7. On perusal of the record, it is clear that in the reference
proceeding, the appellants had relied upon the sale exemplar of
Loni bearing Gat No.53/1A admeasuring 81 R dated 08/02/1999,
wherein market value was recorded as Rs.1,30,000/-, Gat
No.250/2 admeasuring 54 R dated 17/12/1999, wherein market
value was shown Rs.75,000/- and Gat No.65/2, 1 Hectare 19 R
dated 03/05/2000, wherein market value was shown
Rs.1,57,500/-. All these sale exemplars were duly exhibited during
the course of proceedings before the Reference Court.
8. In the background of the abovesaid evidence which was
brought on record by the appellants, they have sought
enhancement in the amount of compensation by considering the
5 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
sale instances, particularly of Gat No.250/2 admeasuring 54 R
dated 17/12/1999 whereby the market value of the land on the
date of notification under Section 4 for acquiring land of the
appellants was Rs.2,03,350/- per hectare.
9. A bare perusal of the Judgment of the Reference Court
shows that the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the
sale instances and also determined the market value as per the
entitlement of the appellants, but without disclosing any
substantive reason, the learned Reference Court has stated that
25% amount is required to be deducted in the average market
value as determined by the Court and thereby, awarded less
compensation by deducting 25% in the average market value
drawn by the learned Reference Court.
10. In the background of the abovesaid factual position, the
main contention of the present appellants in all these appeals is
that there was no reason for deduction of 25% of the average
market value by the learned Reference Court.
11. It is well settled position of law that while awarding
compensation, it is always to be seen that the land owner whose
6 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
land is compulsorily acquired for public purpose, then it is the
duty of the State to award just and fair compensation in the land
acquisition proceedings. It is also laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India that if there are more than one sale
exemplars placed on record, then exemplar having the highest
value should be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer as well
as the Reference Court while determining the market value of the
acquired land.
12. It is pertinent to note that in the present proceeding,
the lands which are acquired for public purpose i.e. for
construction of Minor Irrigation Dam, there was no need of
deduction of any amount from the market value which is
determined by the Reference Court. The same is permitted in cases
where the land is acquired for development of Industrial Area or
otherwise. Therefore, in my view, deduction of 25% amount by the
learned Reference Court is prima facie illegal in the present
matters.
13. Once the Reference Court has held that the sale
instances are proved by the land owner and the transaction of the
sale instances is genuine, in that case, it is the duty of the Court to
7 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
award compensation on the basis of sale instances which is having
the highest rate. Therefore, in my opinion, the sale instance dated
17/12/1999 of Gat No.250/2 of Mouza Loni is the relevant to
consider the correct market value of the acquired land.
14. Accordingly, in my opinion, the appellants are entitled
for the enhancement of compensation without any deduction
at the rate of Rs.2,03,350/- per hectare. Hence, for the aforesaid
reasons, the appeals are partly allowed.
15. The respondents are directed to pay compensation for
the acquired land of the respective appellants in their respective
appeals at the rate of Rs.2,03,350/- per hectare, with all statutory
benefits.
16. Needless to mention that the amount already awarded
and withdrawn by the appellants shall be deducted from the
enhanced amount of compensation.
17. The rest of the Judgment and order passed by the
learned Reference Court is hereby confirmed.
8 51-J-FA-149-2011.doc
18. The respondents are directed to deposit enhanced
amount of compensation within a period of three months with the
Registry of this Court.
19. After depositing the same with the Registry of this
Court, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the said amount,
subject to satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial).
20. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
[JUDGE]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2026 15:13:11
