Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAH and ORSversusVENKAT TATYRAO SHINDE
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The appeals are partly allowed; interest and statutory benefits are to be granted as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari, while the rest of the compensation award stands.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra acquired land for the Benetura Project Murum under the Land Acquisition Act, taking possession in 1987 and awarding compensation in 1992. Claimants appealed the award and the reference court enhanced compensation in several land acquisition references. The State appealed, arguing that the reference court improperly relied on a valuer's report prepared after five years, granted duplicate compensation for structures, and failed to award interest and statutory benefits as required by precedent. The High Court examined the reference court's methodology, found its valuation reasonable, but held that interest and statutory benefits must be granted in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed: interest and statutory benefits were awarded as per the precedent, while the rest of the compensation award was left unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in relying on a valuer's report prepared after the statutory five‑year period.
- Whether separate compensation can be awarded for structures, wells and pipelines already accounted for in the land award.
- Whether the claimants are entitled to interest and other statutory benefits on the compensation awarded.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- interest
- statutory benefits
- valuer report
- delay condonation
- Benetura Project Murum
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27802
CA 1175/09 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
49 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1175 OF 2009 IN RC/379/2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6795 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST.
10983 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7235 OF 2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1178 OF 2009 IN RC/377/2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6796 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST.
10979 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7229 OF 2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1177 OF 2009 IN RC/375/2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6797 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST.
10985 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7223 OF 2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1179 OF 2009 IN RC/381/2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6798 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST.
10990 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7237 OF 2006
...
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
KAMALBAI HANMANT SHINDE
...
AGP for Applicant/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 07, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As acquisition proceeding is of the year 1989, heard finally with the
consent of the learned AGP for the State/applicants. None for the
respondents/claimants.
2. In civil applications filed for delay condonation caused in filing the
restoration applications in first appeals, for the reasons stated in the
applications, the applications are allowed. Delay is condoned. The order
dismissing the appeals is quashed and set aside. First appeals are
restored. Delay applications and restoration applications are allowed and
CA 1175/09 & Ors.
2
disposed of accordingly.
3. In civil applications filed for delay condonation caused in filing the
first appeals, for the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are
allowed. Delay is condoned.
4. In first appeals, heard the learned AGP Mr. B.A. Shinde for
appellants/State. Non appears for respondents/original claimants.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.7.2005 passed by
the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in LAR Nos. 195, 187, 179
and 183 of 2004, the State and acquiring body have preferred the present
appeals, whereby the reference court has enhanced the compensation.
6. The State has acquired the lands of the original
claimants/respondents herein for the purpose of Benetura Project Murum.
Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on
1.1.1989. The possession of the lands of the claimants were taken in 1987
before passing the award dated 26.9.1992 by Special Land Acquisition
Officer (SLAO). The SLAO has passed the award and granted
compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimants filed above references in
which the reference court has enhanced the compensation and granted
compensation of RS. 4,21,500/- in LAR No. 195/2004, Rs.3,50,100/- in
LAR No. 187/2004, Rs.1,44,450/- in LAR No. 179/2004 and Rs.1,46,800/-
in LAR No. 183/2004. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the
reference court, the present appeals are filed.
7. Mr. B.S. Shinde, learned AGP submits that the reference court has
wrongly relied upon the valuer’s report as the valuer’s report was obtained
after the period of five years after acquisition. He further submits that the
entire record was prepared by the claimants with a view to get higher price
CA 1175/09 & Ors.
3
for their acquired lands. He submits that when the compensation was
granted for the acquired lands which include structure, well, pipeline, no
separate compensation can be granted for structure, well and pipeline and
other things. He submits that therefore the reference court has committed
error while considering the reference and prayed to allow the appeals.
8. I have gone through the copy of order of the reference court. On
perusal of the order of the reference court, it is revealed that the reference
court while determining quantum of compensation has considered that in
LAR No. 181/2004 there were trees, well, pipeline in the acquired lands of
the claimant. The reference court has also considered the sale instance,
Exh. 51 which shows that the land was sold for Rs.75000/- per Acre in the
year 1985. Even the reference court has considered the valuer’s report as
well as 7/12 extract, Exh. 65. I have gone through the 7/12 extract, Exh.
65 wherein it was specifically mentioned about existence of bore well,
stone bund, pipeline and the trees were also shown in the 7/12 extract.
Considering all above, I find that the reference court has considered the
comparable sale transactions and arrived at market rate of the acquired
lands. Considering all that I find that the reference court has taken
reasonable view while determining the market value of the acquired lands.
Even after going through the record, I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the reference court. So I hold that no
interference is warranted in the judgment and award of the reference
court.
9. The learned AGP for the appellants submits that the reference court
has granted interest and other statutory benefits from the date of taking
over the possession of the acquired lands and the same is contrary in view
CA 1175/09 & Ors.
4
of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457.
10. Considering the above, I pass the following order.
ORDER
(I) The appeals are partly allowed.
(II) The claimants shall be entitled to interest and other statutory
benefits strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari
(supra).
(III) Rest of the award is maintained.
(IV) Award is modified accordingly.
(V) Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…