Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusRAJARAM BHAGWANTA KOTKAR AND ORS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The land had been converted to non‑agricultural status and must be valued at non‑agricultural market rates; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against a judgment dated 20 June 2015 that enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Nagar Bypass Road, arguing that the land should have been treated as agricultural because it was shown in the Green Zone of the Urban Development Plan. The State sought to set aside the award, contending that the Reference Court wrongly applied market rates for non‑agricultural land. The Court examined the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s report and evidence that the land had already been converted to non‑agricultural status before acquisition. It held that the presence of the land in the Green Zone did not override the factual conversion to non‑agricultural land, and therefore the market value based on comparable non‑agricultural sales was appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. A separate application for condonation of a 360‑day delay in filing the first appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether land shown in the Green Zone of an Urban Development Plan must be treated as agricultural for compensation purposes.
Whether the Reference Court erred in applying market rates for non‑agricultural land despite the land’s inclusion in the Green Zone.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
agricultural land
non‑agricultural land
market value
Urban Development Plan
Green Zone
condonation of delay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26595
1 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

949 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14824 OF 2016
IN FAST/32712/2016

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
RAJARAM BHAGWANTA KOTKAR AND ORS
...
Ms. A. S. Mantri, AGP for the Appellants-State.
...

AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14825 OF 2016
IN FAST/32712/2016

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
RAJARAM BHAGWANTA KOTKAR AND ORS
…
Ms. A. S. Mantri, AGP for the Appellants-State.
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NOS.32712 OF 2016

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
RAJARAM BHAGWANTA KOTKAR AND ORS
…

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026

P.C.:-

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14824 OF 2016:-

1. By this application, the Appellants are seeking condonation

of delay of 360 days in filing first appeal.
2 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016

2. Considering the averments made in the application, the

application is allowed.

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NOS.32712 OF 2016:-

3. Heard Ms. A. S. Mantri, learned AGP for the

Appellants/State. By consent of the learned AGP, the matter is taken up

for final hearing at the admission stage.

4. By the present appeal, the Appellants/State are aggrieved by

the judgment and award dated 20.06.2015 passed by the learned 4th

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar in

L.A.R. No.92 of 2011, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced

the compensation payable for the land 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 land as non-agricultural land. She invited my

attention to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer

(SLAO) and submitted that the acquired land situated at village

Nimbalak, Taluka Nagar, was included in the Urban Development Plan

and was shown in the Green Zone under the Development Plan. She

contended that once the land was shown in the Green Zone, it ought to

have been treated as agricultural land. Consequently, the learned

Reference Court ought not to have applied the market rate applicable
3 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016

to non-agricultural land. On this ground, she submits that the

impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside.

6. None appears for the Respondents/Claimants, though served.

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 Nimbalak area was

included in the Urban Development Plan and that the acquired land

was shown in the Green Zone. Solely on that basis, the acquired land

was treated as agricultural land. However, the material available on

record, including the sale instances relied upon by the Claimants,

clearly established before the learned Reference Court that the

acquired land had already been converted into non-agricultural land.

Accordingly, the learned Reference Court determined the market value

on the basis of comparable sale instances relating to non-agricultural

lands. Merely because the land was shown in the Green Zone under the

Development Plan could not be a valid ground to ignore its non-

agricultural character and deny the appropriate market value.

8. The learned Reference Court has rightly held that the

acquired land had already been converted into non-agricultural land

and, therefore, rightly determined the market value by relying upon

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
4 of 4 949-CA.14824.2016

perversity or illegality in the judgment and award dated 20.06.2015

passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar in L.A.R. No.92 of 2011.

9. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

10. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…