Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusRAGHUNATH NARAYAN CHAURE AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The reference court correctly treated the acquired lands as non‑agricultural and determined compensation based on the market value of non‑agricultural land.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed the judgment of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar which had enhanced compensation for lands acquired for the Nagar Bypass Road, treating the lands as non‑agricultural. The State argued that the lands, shown in the Urban Development Plan’s Green Zone, should be classified as agricultural and compensated at a lower rate. The High Court examined the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s report and the material before the reference court, noting that the lands had already been converted to non‑agricultural use and that comparable sale transactions supported a market‑value assessment for non‑agricultural land. The Court held that the reference court was correct in treating the lands as non‑agricultural and in applying the market rate based on the conversion date. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the pending civil applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether lands shown in the Green Zone of an Urban Development Plan must be treated as agricultural for compensation purposes.
- Whether the conversion of the acquired lands to non‑agricultural use justifies valuation at market rates for non‑agricultural land.
- Whether the reference court’s award was perverse or illegal.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- agricultural land
- non‑agricultural conversion
- market value
- Green Zone
- Urban Development Plan
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27095
1 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30370 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13325 OF 2016
IN FAST/30370/2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
BABASAHEB PANDURANG KARALE AND ANR
...
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State.
...
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13326 OF 2016
IN FAST/30370/2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
BABASAHEB PANDURANG KARALE AND ANR
…
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State.
AND
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30364 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13313 OF 2016
IN FAST/30364/2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
RAGHUNATH NARAYAN CHAURE AND ANR
…
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State.
Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
AND
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30373 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13323 OF 2016
IN FAST/30373/2016
2 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
SANJAY NAMDEO SHELAR
…
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13314 OF 2016
IN FAST/30364/2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
RAGHUNATH NARAYAN CHAURE AND ANR
…
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State.
Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13321 OF 2016
IN FAST/30373/2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
SANJAY NAMDEO SHELAR
…
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants/State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13325 OF 2016, 13321 OF 2016 AND 13313
OF 2016:-
1. By these applications, the Appellants are seeking
condonation of delay of 480 days in filing first appeals.
3 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016
2. Considering the averments made in the applications, the
applications are allowed.
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NOS.30370 OF 2016, 30364 OF 2016 AND
30373 OF 2016:-
3. Heard Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP for the Appellants/State.
By consent of the learned AGP, the matters are taken up for final
hearing at the admission stage.
4. By the present appeals, the Appellants/State are aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 27.01.2015 passed by the learned 4th
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in L.A.R. Nos. 51/2012,
52/2012 and 30/2012, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced
the compensation payable for the lands of the Claimants acquired for
the Nagar Bypass Road.
5. Learned AGP for the Appellants/State submits that the
learned Reference Court erroneously awarded compensation by
treating the acquired lands as non-agricultural lands. He invited my
attention to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(SLAO) and submitted that the lands situated at village Nepti were
included in the Urban Development Plan and were shown in the Green
Zone under the Development Plan. He contended that once the lands
were shown in the Green Zone, they ought to have been treated as
agricultural lands. Consequently, according to him, the learned
4 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016
Reference Court ought not to have applied the market rate applicable
to non-agricultural lands. On these grounds, he submits that the
impugned judgment and award deserve to be set aside.
6. None appears for the Respondents/Claimants.
7. I have heard the learned AGP for the Appellants/State and
perused the impugned judgment and award as well as the award
passed by the SLAO. The SLAO observed that the Nepti area was
included in the Urban Development Plan and that the acquired lands
were situated in the Green Zone. Solely on that basis, the lands were
treated as agricultural lands. However, the material placed before the
learned Reference Court, including the sale instances relied upon by
the Claimants, clearly established that the acquired lands had already
been converted into non-agricultural lands. Accordingly, the learned
Reference Court assessed the market value on the basis of comparable
sale instances relating to non-agricultural lands. Merely because the
lands were shown in the Green Zone under the Development Plan
could not be a valid ground to ignore their non-agricultural character
and deny the appropriate market value.
8. The learned Reference Court has rightly recorded that the
acquired lands had already been converted into non-agricultural lands
and, therefore, rightly determined the market value by relying upon
5 of 5 931-CA.13325.2016
the sale instances prevailing as on the date of the notification issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. I do not find any
perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by
the learned Reference Court.
9. Hence, the appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
10. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…