Mrs. Charulata W/O Pukhraj Khajanchi vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2373 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mrs. Charulata W/O Pukhraj Khajanchi vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 9 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:3853


                                                          1                  fa408.2015 (j).odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 408/2015

                    Mrs. Charulata W/o Pukhraj Khajanchi,
                    aged about 57 years,
                    Occ : Agriculturist/Household,
                    R/o Charu Boutique, Mahajan Market,
                    Sitabuldi,                                       APPELLANT
                    Nagpur, Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur.              (Org.Claimant on RA)

                              Versus

                    1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                           through Collector, Chandrapur.

                    2.     The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
                           through its Chief Executive Officer.

                    3.     The Executive Engineer (Civil).            RESPONDENTS
                           Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.     (Ori. Non-Applicants on R.A.)
                                              ...



                           Mr. A.A.Choube, Advocate for Appellant.
                           Ms.Sneha Dhote, AGP. for Respondent No.1/State.
                           Mr. P. M. Giratkar, Advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3.
                                                    ...

                           CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                           Date of reserving Judgment : 6th March, 2026.
                           Date of pronouncing Judgment : 9th March, 2026.


                    JUDGMENT:

1. This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "L.A. Act") by the Claimant being

not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Civil 2 fa408.2015 (j).odt

Judge, Senior, Division, Chandrapur, in Reference No. 07/2002

decided by the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2014.

2. The Claimant's agricultural land Survey No.864, Area

1.52 HR and Survey No.865, area 18 R, total area 1.70 HR,

situated at mouza Saoli, District Chandrapur, came to be acquired

for construction of the Panchayat Samiti Complex. The Section 4

Notification was published in the Government gazette on

17.8.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "LAO") granted

compensation at the rate of Rs.1,46,000/- per hectare and total

amount of Rs.2,49,791/-.

3. In the Reference Application, the Claimant claimed

compensation of Rs.9,70,500/- per hectare as the market value and

claimed the total compensation for the acquired land of

Rs.16,50,000/-. The Claimant relied on the copy of Index-II

(Exhibits 38 and 39) in respect of the plots. The Claimant brought

on record the relevant documents in support of the Reference

Application. The Acquiring Body led their evidence. Considering

the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court passed the

Judgment and Award by awarding the rate of Rs.1,09,000/- per

hectare.

4. Heard learned Advocate for the Claimant, learned AGP

for Respondent no.1/State and the learned Advocate for the 3 fa408.2015 (j).odt

Respondent nos.2 and 3 - Acquiring Body. With their assistance,

perused the papers on record.

(a) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

Appellant that, despite there being ample material to show that,

the acquired land was having non-agricultural potentiality and the

document Index-II of the plots below Exhibits 38 and 39 were

brought on record to show the market rate of the lands prior to

issuance of Section 4 Notification, the learned Reference Court only

on the basis that, the acquired land was agricultural land,

discarded the said documentary evidence. He submitted that, the

Claimant had applied to the Competent Authority for conversion of

the acquired land into the non-agricultural land and the permission

from the Competent Authority was also issued 20 days after the

issuance of Section 4 Notification. He submitted that, the land was

acquired for the Complex of the Panchayat Samiti, which itself go

to show that, the acquired land was having non-agricultural

potentiality. He submitted that, the compensation at the rate of

Rs.13.22 per square feet as was the rate in Exhibit 39, which was

the sale instance dated 25.1.2000, i.e., six (6) months prior to the

Section 4 Notification, be awarded. He submitted that, as per the

provisions of Section 44 (Procedure for conversion of use of land

from one purpose to another) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue

4 fa408.2015 (j).odt

Code, 1966 provide that, if the Competent Authority failed to

communicate the Applicant of his decision within ninety days from

the date of acknowledgement of the application, or from the date

of receipt of the application-if the application was not

acknowledged, or within fifteen days from the date of receipt of

application for a temporary change of user or where an application

has been duly returned for the purposes mentioned in clause (b) of

sub-section (2), then within ninety days (or as the case may be,

within 15 days) from the date on which it is again presented duly

complied with, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have

been granted, but subject to any conditions prescribed in the Rules

made by the State Government in respect of such user . He

submitted that, considering the said provision, the ninety days

period was over prior to issuance of Section 4 Notification and,

therefore, the acquired land was deemed non-agricultural land.

(a) (i) In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate for

the Appellant cited the Judgment in Sumitrabai Madhavrao Naik

Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 DGLS (Bom.)684, wherein the legal

principles in respect of determination of the market value are

considered. He further relied on the Judgment of Viluben Jhalejar

Contractor (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789,

wherein it is observed that, the market value is ordinarily the price

5 fa408.2015 (j).odt

of the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing

seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. He

further relied on the decisions in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru

and others Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt.) and another (1995) 1 SCC 717,

wherein it is observed that, the potential value on the date of

acquisition is to be considered. He further relied on the decision in

Digamber and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013)

14 SCC 406, wherein the reference of earlier decision are

reconsidered wherein it is observed that, for ascertaining the

market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land

should also be taken into consideration. `Potentiality' means

capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of

actuality. It is well settled that, market value of a property has to

be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all

its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in

its most advantageous manner. He further relied on the decision in

P. Ram Reddy and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad

and others, (1995) 2 SCC 305, wherein the aspect of Building

potentiality of the acquired land is considered, and it has been

observed that, when the acquired land holds such potentiality of

being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future,

such potentiality is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired 6 fa408.2015 (j).odt

land. Therefore, if the required land has building potentiality, its

value, like any other potential land should necessarily be taken into

account for determining the market value of such land. It is further

observed that, an acquired land could be regarded as the building

potentiality. If such land although was used on the relevant date

envisaged under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act for agricultural or

horticulture or other like purposes or was even barren or waste on

that date, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the

near future as land for putting up residential, commercial,

industrial or other buildings. It is further observed that, when once

a conclusion is reached that, there was the possibility of the

acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate

or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that, the

acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine

its market value taking into account the increase in price

attributable. In respect of determining the market value of the

acquired land with building potentiality, it is observed that, if there

is any other land similar to the acquired land which had been sold

for a price obtained by a willing seller from a willing purchaser,

such price could be taken as the market value of the acquired land,

in that, it would have comprised of both the market value of the 7 fa408.2015 (j).odt

land as was being actually used plus increase in price attributable

to its building potentiality.

(b) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

Acquiring Body that, the acquired land was agricultural land at the

relevant time and, therefore, the sale instances of the plots will not

be of any assistance to the Claimant. She submitted that, no case

exists to interfere in the Judgment and Award of the learned

Reference Court.

5. There is no dispute in respect of acquisition of the

aforesaid Claimant's land for the aforementioned purpose i.e.

construction of new Panchayat Samiti Complex. The record shows

that, the Competent Authority i.e. the Collector, Chandrapur, by

Order dated 7.9.2000 at Exhibit 41 granted permission to convert

the acquired land into the non-agricultural land. The Exhibit-42 is

the layout plan of the acquired land which was approved by the

Collector, Chandrapur, pursuant to the said order granting

conversion of the acquired land to the non-agricultural land. It is

true that, the said permission is 20 days after the date of

Notification which was dated 17.8.2000. That can be no reason to

discard the said document. It clearly goes to show that, the

acquired land had potential of non-agricultural use and was having

building potentiality. Even ignoring this piece of evidence, if one 8 fa408.2015 (j).odt

sees the purpose for which the land was acquired, it was for the

construction of the Panchayat Samiti Complex, which endorses

that, the acquired land was having building potentiality.

6. The Judgment passed by the learned Tribunal shows

that, the learned Reference Court considered the aspect that, the

Applicant got the permission for conversion of the acquired land

into non-agricultural purpose vide Exhibit 41, however, it observed

that, the Claimant failed to act upon the document and observed

that, if the applicant acted on Exhibits 41 and 43, then but natural

the records of right it could be mutated and shown the acquired

land as Class-I of the Applicant. In support of the enhanced

compensation, the Claimant brought on record the Index-II in

respect of the transaction of plots from the same village i.e. Saoli,

by the respective owners. The said documents are at Exhibit 38 and

39. The said transactions are prior to the issuance of Section 4

Notification. The Index-II at Exhibit 38 is dated 13.1.1999 and

Index-II at Exhibit 39 dated 25.1.2000. There is nothing to show

that, the said sale transactions were not genuine. Therefore, the

same can be taken into consideration for determining the rate of

the acquired land. The Chart placed on record by the Advocate for

the Appellant shows that, the rate in Exhibit 39 was Rs.13.22 per

square feet. The said Chart is not controverted by learned Advocate 9 fa408.2015 (j).odt

for the Acquiring Body. Under such circumstances, it will not be just

and proper to discard the said documents on the ground that, the

acquired lands were agricultural lands. The compensation is

calculated as under:-

1 Hectare 107639 square feet Total Area 1.70 X 107639 = 182986.3 square feet.

Rs.13.22 X 182986.3 sq.ft. = Rs.24,19,078.88 Less 33% deduction towards the Development Rs.7,98,296.03. Charges Rs.24,19,078.88 Less Rs.7,98,296.03 = Rs.16,20,782.85 Less the compensation received under protest Rs.12,53,268.85 by the Claimant Rs.3,67,514/-

7. In the light of above referred legal position, as is clear

from the above referred Judgments cited by the learned Advocate

for the Claimant, the acquired land had the non-agricultural and

building potentiality. Based on the principles enumerated in the

above referred decisions, the Appellant is entitled for enhanced

compensation as calculated above.

8. In view of above discussion, the following Order

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii)The Award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that, the Respondents shall pay the enhanced compensation to the Claimant of Rs.12,53,268.85 with the statutory benefits as shown in the operative order of the Judgment of the learned Reference Court.

10 fa408.2015 (j).odt

(iii) The Award stands modified accordingly.

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.

(v) The Record and proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

mukund ambulkar

Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/03/2026 11:05:27