[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Arunkumar S/O Narayanrao Deshmukh vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4910
1/9 17 fa 140-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2015
Arunkumar Narayanrao Deshmukh APPELLANT:
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation:Agriculturist and (ORIGINAL
Medical Practitioner, Resident of PETITIONERS ON
Irwin Square, Amravati, Tahsil and R.A.).
district Amravati.
-Versus-
1. The State of Maharashtra, Collector,
Amravati, 444602
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, RESPONDENTS
Tahasil and district Amravati 444601 (ORIGINAL
RESPONDENTS
ON On R.A.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.V.Purohit, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Sneha Dhote, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 30.01.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 27.03.2026.
JUDGMENT :
-
1) This First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short LA Act) is filed by the Original
Claimant for enhanced compensation. The Appellant's land
admeasuring 1H 63R out of gat No.1099/4 situated at village
Shirala, District Amravati came to be acquired for the purpose of
Kavita.
2/9 17 fa 140-15
rehabilitation of flood affected persons. The Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisitions Act was issued on
08.06.2009 and the Award came to be passed on 22.10.2010
determining the compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare.
2) Being not satisfied with the compensation determined by
the Land Acquisition Officer, the Appellant preferred the
Reference Application No.33 of 2011 claiming compensation
@ Rs. 40/- per square feet on the ground that, the acquired land
had the non agriculture potentiality(NA). The Reference
Application was resisted by the Respondents. The Appellant led
the evidence. Considering the evidence available on record, the
learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation @
2,60,000/- per Hectare with the statutory benefits by the
Judgment and Award dated 11.08.2014.
3) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that, the land adjacent to the acquired land was sold on per
square feet basis. The acquired land had the NA potentiality.
After acquisition of the subject land, a small portion of the land
remains with the Appellant, which is not feasible for cultivation
purpose. Though the learned Tribunal considered the NA
Kavita.
3/9 17 fa 140-15
potentiality of the acquired land, granted meagre compensation.
Prior to the acquisition of the subject land, some part of the
Appellant's land out of the same gat number was acquired by the
Electricity Department, which sold the same @ Rs.40/- per
square feet. Considering the evidence available on record, the
compensation be enhanced and granted on per square feet basis.
The Appeal be allowed.
4) It is submitted by the learned AGP for the Respondents
that, the adjacent land was well developed land and the subject
land was not converted to the non agricultural use and therefore,
can not be compared with each other. The subject land was not
developed land. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence
available on record and assigned proper reasons for
enhancement in the compensation of Rs.60,000/-. As just and
proper, compensation has been awarded by the learned
Reference Court, no interference was called for and the Appeal
be dismissed.
5) With the assistance of both the sides, gone through the
papers. There is no dispute in respect of the extent of land of the
Appellant acquired by the Respondents for rehabilitation
Kavita.
4/9 17 fa 140-15
purpose. The Appellant examined himself by filing the evidence
affidavit below Exh.14. He has brought on record various
documents in support of his claim. The Appellant also examined
one witness below Exh.30 to show that, the adjacent land was
acquired and per square feet rate was granted. One more witness
came to be examined below Exh.36, who was the resident of the
same village, where the acquired land is situated, to show that,
the area where the acquired land is situated was developed. The
Appellant also brought on record the sale instances.
6) On the basis of the Admission given by the Appellant, in
the cross examination, the learned Reference Court observed
that, the acquired land was Dry Crop Land. The said finding is
based on the evidence available on record. The said admission of
the Appellant was on the basis of 7/12 extract of the acquired
land. On discussing the evidence available on record, the learned
Reference Court observed that, from the final Award, it was very
much clear that, the fields (including the acquired land) acquired
for the purpose of rehabilitation of flood affected persons and
further observed that, there was some substance in the
contention of the Appellant that, the acquired land was adjacent
Kavita.
5/9 17 fa 140-15
to the locality in the village and therefore, was useful for
residential purpose. The observation in the Judgment of the
learned Reference Court shows that, the certified copy of the
Award in Claim Application No.77 of 1992 filed by the
Appellant was brought on record at Exh.28 to show that, on
earlier occasion, his another filed bearing gat No.1099/3 was
acquired @ Rs.14,688/- per Hectare and the Reference Court in
the said Reference Application granted enhanced compensation
of Rs.4,56,250/- i.e. @ Rs.10/- per square feet. The learned
Reference Court discarded the said piece of evidence on the
ground that, the said land was converted into NA and the
subject land was agricultural land.
7) The evidence of Witness No.2 Vijay D.Raut examined
by the Appellant Below Exh.30 shows that, he was Deputy
Executive Engineer in the Electricity Department. The land
admeasuring 53424 sq.ft. out of gat No.1099/3, survey No. 506
and 507/1, 2, area 2 H.00 R from the same village was acquired
by the Government and the Electricity Department purchased
the said land for Rs.10,92,520/- i.e. @ Rs.20.45 ps. per sq.ft.
This aspect has been considered by the learned Reference Court.
Kavita.
6/9 17 fa 140-15
8) The above evidence on record in respect of the rate
awarded or granted to the Appellants for the land acquired at the
earlier point of time is discarded by the learned Reference Court
on the ground that, the said lands were developed and the
subject land was not developed. However, the learned
Reference Court, as is clear from the observation made in the
Judgment, was convinced that, the subject land was having
residential potentiality. In other words, the learned Reference
Court was convinced that, the subject land was having NA
potentiality. The learned Reference Court further was convinced
that, the subject land was surrounded by the locality. It further
observed that, no rebuttal evidence was led by the Respondents.
The learned Reference Court further observed that, it was
necessary to enhance the rate for the subject land and enhanced
the same by Rs.60,000/-.
9) It is clear from the evidence available on record and from
the observations made by the learned Reference Court, that
though the subject land was agricultural land, it had NA
potentiality. The learned Advocate for the Appellant relied on
the judgment in Executive Engineer (C), M.S.E.B, Nagpur Vs.
Kavita.
7/9 17 fa 140-15
Uttamrao Bapurao Raut and ors 2009(6) ALL MR 827 , wherein
it has observed that, "While determining the compensation as
contemplated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the
potentiality of the land acquired will have to be taken into
consideration to ascertain the market value of the land as on the
date of Section 4 Notification". There can not be any dispute
in respect of the ratio of the said Judgment.
10) The relevant date for the determination of the market
value of the subject land was 08.06.2009 on which Section 4
Notification was published. The observation in the Judgment of
the learned Reference Court shows that, the Electricity
Department purchased the land out of which some land was
from gat No.1099/3, which belonged to the Appellant @
Rs.20% per sq.ft on 24.01.2008. Undisputedly, the said land
was also situated in the village, where the subject land is situated.
This goes to show that,, one (1) year prior to the issuance of
Section 4 Notification, the NA land from the same village was
purchased by the Electricity Department @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft.
This being so and clear observation by the learned Reference
Court that, the subject land was having NA potentiality, the
Kavita.
8/9 17 fa 140-15
enhanced rate of compensation by the Reference Court does not
appear to be just and proper. Considering the evidence available
on record and considering the 10% hike per year in the market
value, the Appellant would be entitled to receive the
compensation @ of Rs.22 per Sq.ft. Undisputedly, the
acquisition was done for rehabilitation of flood affected persons.
This being the position, there shall be deduction towards
development charges which normally is 1/3rd i.e. 33.3%. This
deduction will have to be made from the compensation amount.
The calculation comes as under .
Particulars Calculation / Amount (₹)
Basis
Land acquired by the 1 HR 63 Acre
Government
Conversion factor 1 HR = 107,639
sq. ft
Total acquired land (sq. ft) 1.63 × 107,639 1,75,451.57 sq.
ft
Rate fixed by LAO ₹2,00,000 per HR
Compensation by LAO 2,00,000 × 1.63 ₹3,26,000
HR
Rate fixed by the ₹2,60,000 per HR
Reference Court
Compensation by the ₹ 2,60,000 × 1.63 ₹4,23,800
Reference Court HR
Rate as per the sale ₹ 20 per sq. ft + ₹ 22 per sq. ft
instance + Market rate 10%
after 10% increase = Rate
Kavita.
9/9 17 fa 140-15
determined by the court
Market value of acquired 1,75,451.57 × ₹ 22 ₹38,59,934
land per sq ft
Deduction 1/3rd, i.e., ₹38,59,934 (*) ₹ 12,86,645/-
33.3% 33.3%
Total amount after ₹ 25,73,289/-
deduction
Compensation awarded by ₹4,23,800
the Reference Court
Compensation as per this ₹25,73,289 ( - ) ₹ ₹ 21,49,489/-
Court 4,23,800
11) The Award would stands modified accordingly. Hence the
following order.
ORDER
i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The Appellant would be entitled for enhanced
compensation towards the acquired land
admeasuring 1H 63R @ Rs.22 per sq.ft, which
comes to Rs.21,29,489/- after 1/3rd i.e.33.33%
deduction towards the development charges.
iii) The other statutory benefits as per the operative order
of the Judgment and Award be calculated on the
enhanced compensation accordingly.
iv) The amount of enhanced compensation be deposited
within four (4) months.
v) R & P be sent back to the learned Reference Court.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/03/2026 14:45:02
Kavita.
