Bombay High Court
GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERSversusRUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The Reference Court correctly relied on the pre‑notification sale instance and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The GMIDC, represented by the Executive Engineer, appealed against a compensation award in a land acquisition matter, alleging that the Reference Court improperly relied on a sale of a small 8‑R plot to determine market value, resulting in an excessive enhancement of compensation. The appellants also sought condonation of a 666‑day delay in filing the first appeal. The court noted that the sale deed pre‑dated the Section 4 notification and that the appellants offered no rebuttal evidence to disprove its comparability or proximity. Accordingly, the court held that the Reference Court’s reliance on the sale was proper and that there was no perversity in the award. The appeal was dismissed, and the pending civil applications were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in relying on a sale of a small parcel as a comparable for determining market value of the acquired land.
- Whether the enhancement of compensation to more than four times the original award is justified.
- Whether a delay of 666 days in filing the first appeal can be condoned.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- reference court
- market value
- sale comparable
- delay condonation
- civil appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26105
1 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
928 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1302 OF 2016
IN FAST/18633/2015
GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION
DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE
...
Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicants.
...
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1303 OF 2016
IN FAST/18633/2015
GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION
DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE
…
Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicants.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1301 OF 2016
IN FAST/18633/2015
GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION
DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE
…
Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicants.
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.18633 OF 2015
GMIDC THR ITS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION
DIVISION LATUR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
RUKMINBAI MADHU KHALANGRE
2 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1301 OF 2016:- (DELAY)
1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation
of delay of 666 days in filing first appeal.
2. Considering the averments made in the application, the
application is allowed.
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.18633 OF 2015:-
3. Heard Mr. Prashant S. Shinde, learned Advocate for the
Appellants.
4. By the present appeal, the Appellants are aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 02.05.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.312 of 2009.
5. Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that
the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), by award dated
05.06.2006, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.860/- per R.
Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Respondent-Claimant
sought a reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
contending that the compensation awarded was inadequate. He
3 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016
submits that the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation
solely by relying upon the sale instance at Exhibit-30, dated
27.07.1998. According to him, the said sale instance pertains to a small
piece of land admeasuring only 8 R and except for the said transaction,
the Claimant did not produce any other evidence to justify
enhancement of compensation. He further submits that the learned
Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the said sale instance,
as it relates to a very small extent of land. Placing reliance upon a
catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he contends that
sale instances relating to small plots should ordinarily not be treated as
comparable while determining the market value of a large acquired
land. He further submits that the sale instance relied upon by the
Reference Court was not in close proximity to the acquired land.
6. Learned Advocate for the Appellants further submits that the
compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court has been
enhanced to more than four times the amount awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer, which is wholly unjustified.
7. Though served, none appears for the Respondent/Claimant.
8. I have heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants and
carefully perused the award passed by the learned Reference Court.
The Reference Court has recorded a finding that it has relied upon the
4 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016
sale instance at Exhibit-30. In the present case, the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 31.09.2004,
possession of the acquired land was taken on 13.03.2003, and the Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.860/- per
R, which was found to be meagre.
9. The Claimant proved the sale instance at Exhibit-30, dated
27.07.1998, which was executed much prior to the publication of the
Section 4 notification. Significantly, the Appellants did not lead any
rebuttal evidence to establish that the said sale instance was not
comparable or that it was not situated in close proximity to the
acquired land. The learned Reference Court, after considering the fact
that the sale deed was executed prior to the issuance of the Section 4
notification and making appropriate adjustments, arrived at the
conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as on the
relevant date, i.e. 30.09.2004, ought to be Rs.1,90,000/- per hectare.
10. In view of the above, I find that the learned Reference Court
has rightly relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit-30, which is prior to
the Section 4 notification. I do not find any perversity or illegality in
the judgment and order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.312 of 2009, warranting
interference by this Court.
5 of 5 928-CA.1302.2016
11. The First Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…