THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS DIVISION, M.S.E.B. , OSMANABADversusSURESH NAGAPPA AMBARKHANE AND ANR.

2026:BHC-AUG:35493


                                                                           fa1232.13-
                                                -1-


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2013

                 Suresh s/o Nagappa Ambarkhane
                 and another                              ...Appellants

                      Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra and others      ...Respondents

                                                  …..
                 Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar a/w Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. V. G.
                 Sakolkar, advocate for the appellants
                 Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1
                 Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for respondent No.2
                                                   …..
                                                  AND
                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 2114 OF 2014

                 The Executive Engineer,
                 MSEB, Osmanabad                          ...Appellants

                      Versus

                 Suresh s/o Nagappa Ambarkhane
                 and others                               ...Respondents

                                                    …..
                 Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for the appellant
                 Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar a/w Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. V. G.
                 Sakolkar, advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
                 Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for the respondent No.3
                                                  …..

                                    CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                    DATED : 8th MAY, 2026

                 O R D E R :-


                 1.   The first appeal No. 1232 of 2013 is preferred by the claimant

                 whereas the first appeal No. 2114 of 2014 is preferred by the
                                                               fa1232.13-
                                     -2-

acquiring authority against the one and the same judgment and

award passed by the learned Reference Court, Udgir, District Latur in

Land Acquisition Reference No. 258 of 2010 (Old No. 748 of 2002),

dated 23.11.2012, whereby the claim of the claimants was partly

allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation.



2.         The land bearing block No. 23/4, admeasuring 78 R, situated

at Village Loni, Taluka Udgir, District Latur, was acquired for the

purpose of installation of a 33 KV sub-station of MSEB at Loni,

Taluka Udgir, District Latur, as per the notification issued and

published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short, "L.A. Act"), dated 15.04.1999.



3.         By final award, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the

compensation @ Rs. 21.17 per sq. ft., for acquired land whereas the

learned Reference Court awarded the compensation @ Rs.62.50 per

sq. ft..



4.         Learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the pleadings,

evidence, grounds of objection raised in the appeal and the reasons

and findings recorded in the impugned judgment and award. He

submitted that the sale exemplar at Exhibit 26, which is relied upon

by the Reference Court, is not of the highest sale consideration. It is
                                                             fa1232.13-
                                  -3-

pointed out that the sale exemplar at Exh. 24 dated 13.07.1998 is of

the highest sale consideration and it is a comparable sale exemplar.

He further submitted that the sale exemplar Exh.42 sought to be

relied upon by the acquiring authority is of the lowest consideration

and therefore, it cannot be relied upon as per settled law. He also

submitted that the pursis filed by the acquiring authority for placing

on record additional evidence of photographs of acquired land cannot

be accepted, as those are false documents. It is submitted to reject

the said pursis. For that procedure, as per Order XLI Rule 27 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for adducing additional evidence is

not followed. He further pointed out that the rental compensation was

not awarded even though the possession of acquired land was taken

on 26.8.1998 and notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act was issued

on 15.4.1999. He prayed to award it 9% interest on the amount of

compensation.       He prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the

acquiring authority and allow the appeal filed by the claimants for

enhancement of compensation.



5.    Learned advocate for the appellants-claimants placed reliance

on the following authorities:-



i)    Krishan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2025

SC 2468, in which it is held that irrespective of whether the sale deed
                                                               fa1232.13-
                                  -4-

relied upon pertains to Kukrola or Fazalwas, the same set of

exemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages. Artificial

boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be allowed

to obstruct the application of the fundamental principle of fairness.



ii)    S. Shankaraiah through GPA Holder and others vs. Land

Acquisition Officer and revenue Divisional Officer Peddapali

Karimnagar Dist. and others, AIROnline 2022 SC 862, in which it

is held that the purpose for which the land was acquired is a highly

relevant factor in determining its true market value. If the land is

acquired for an overarching purpose like coal excavation or railways

where the entire acreage is utilized without requiring further sub-

division (such as laying internal roads, sewage systems, or leaving

spaces    for   public   amenities),    the   standard   deduction      for

"development" is completely unwarranted.



III)   First Appeal No. 1280 of 2011 and the Cross objection therein,

in which a similar issue, as is involved in these appeals, was involved

and this Court has held that the claimants are entitled to enhanced

amount of compensation.



6.     Learned Advocate for the acquiring authority in First Appeal

No. 2114 of 2014, strongly opposed the appeal filed by the claimants
                                                            fa1232.13-
                                 -5-

and pointed out the grounds of objections raised in the First Appeal

No. 2114 of 2014 filed by the Acquiring Authority that there are no

justifiable reasons to award exorbitant amount of compensation. He

submitted that the learned Reference Court ought to have deducted

75% of the amount out of sale consideration of sale exemplar at

Exh.26 as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case    of   Haridwar    Development     Authority,   Haridwar    vs.

Raghubeer Singh etc. 2010 LAC 354.          The Non-Agricultural (for

short N.A.) order of acquired land was not acted upon in respect of

the acquired land. It was not N.A. land. He is pointed out the

photographs of the acquired land submitted with written notes of

argument to show that it was not developed land. He further pointed

out that the interest awarded by the Reference Court is not as per the

provisions of the L.A. Act. He also pointed out the sale exemplar

Exh.42 which can be considered as reliable evidence adduced by the

acquiring authority, but sale exemplar Exh.24 is of different village

Somnathpur cannot be relied upon. He lastly submitted to dismiss

the appeal filed by the claimants and allow the appeal filed by the

acquiring authority by setting aside the impugned judgment and

award by reducing the exorbitant amount of compensation.



7.     Learned advocate for the acquiring authority placed reliance on

the following authorities:-
                                                              fa1232.13-
                                  -6-

I)     V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer,

(2004) 10 SCC 640, in which it is held that , the Supreme Court of

India held that the best evidence of market value for acquired land is

the sale transaction of the exact land in question to which the

claimant is a party.



II)    Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Vishakapatnam vs A

Mangala Gowri (Smt.), (1991) 4 SCC 218, in which it is held that the

price paid in bonafide sales of the same or adjacent lands within a

reasonable proximate time of the acquisition notification is the best

evidence to establish market value.



III)   Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer, Poona and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751 in which it is held

the foundational legal parameters for determining compensation for

acquired land is the "market value". It is the price, which the willing

buyer would pay to the willing seller, and outlined several core

principles governing land valuation.



8.     Nobody will dispute the law laid down in the above authorities.

However, it is well settled that facts of the each case are decisive, to

which law is to be applied. However, keeping in mind the guidelines,

principles and law laid down in above authorities, this Court proceed
                                                              fa1232.13-
                                  -7-

to re-appreciate the evidence with reasons and findings in the

impugned judgment.



9.    The claimants filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh.

17 and reiterated the material contentions raised in the claim petition.

He deposed that village Loni is merged into the Municipal Council,

Udgir. There are many housing colonies, saw mills, Udgir Petrol

Pump and Mukkawar Petrol Pump. Udgir is a developed city having

Municipal Council, as there is a MIDC at Udgir etc.. The acquired

land is adjacent to Udgir Nanded State Highway. It is not necessary

to reproduce his entire deposition.



10.   The claimants examined P.W. 2 Sanjaykumar Biradar to prove

the sale exemplar at Exh. 26. He deposed that he was a witness to

it. The claimants examined an expert          valuer of land P.W. 3

Nandkumar Pokalwar. He deposed that on 5.6.2000, he visited the

acquired land and as per his experience and facts noted there, he

determined the value of the acquired land @ Rs. 192.23 per sq. ft.,

as per valuation report at Exh. 29. He also deposed that the land is

adjacent to Udgir Nanded State Highway.



11.   The claimants are relying upon the documentary evidence of

the sale exemplar at Exh.23 to 26, final award at Exh. 21, the E-
                                                                 fa1232.13-
                                   -8-

statement at Exh. 22, valuation report of valuer at Exh.29, the N.A.

order of the acquired land at Exh. 34 dated 12.07.1992 and the

village map of Loni at Exh. 39.



12.   Perused the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment

along with the evidence of both sides, particularly all sale exemplars

of both sides. It is well settled that the sale exemplar of the highest

sale consideration should be relied upon if it is bonafide and

comparable sale exemplar. When sale exemplars of the same village

or vicinity are bonafide and comparable valuation report of acquired

land cannot be relied upon as argued by Mr. Bajaj, learned advocate

for the acquiring authority.



13.   The comparative chart of sale exemplars relied upon by the

claimants are as follows:-

Sr.   Exh. Date       Village      Survey No. Area        Considerat Rate per
No    No                           / Pot No.              ion        sq. ft.
                                                          amount     (Rs.)
                                                          (Rs.)
1     23   19/06/1991 Udgir        2-3-312/1    80 × 30   4,34,400/- 180.83
                                                2400
2     24   13/07/1998 Somnathpur    plot No     90 × 15   2,00,000/- 148.14
                                   316          1350
3     25   20/04/1998 Udgir        308 Plot no 60 × 22.6 1,90,000/- 140.74
                                   08          1350
4     26   26/06/1997 Loni         18(123)      37 × 30   1,05,000/- 104.47
                                   plot no 04   1005
                                                                 fa1232.13-
                                    -9-

14.   The acquiring authority has also relied upon the sale exemplar

as shown in the following chart:-



Sr.   Exh. Date       Village       Survey No Area        Considerat Rate per
No    No                                                  ion        sq. ft.
                                                          amount     (Rs.)
                                                          (Rs.)
1     42   13/10/1997 Loni          128/A/2     90 × 40   33,000/-   9.16
                                    Plot No.69, 3600
                                    70 and 71



15.   The sale exemplars are relevant and admissible under Section

51-A of the L.A. Act. The contents thereof need not be proved as per

Section 59 of Indian Evidence Act corresponding to Section 54 of the

Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Thus proof of contents of sale-

exemplar is dispensed with.



16.    The Acquiring Authority is relying upon the sale exemplar at

Exh. 42 dated 13.10.1997, by which the N.A. plots Nos. 69,70, and

71 from survey number 128/A/2 of village Loni, admeasuring a total

area 3600 sq. ft. were sold for a consideration of Rs.33,000/- (i.e.

Rs.9.16 per sq. ft.). It is not the sale exemplar with the highest sale

consideration as compared to other sale exemplars shown in the

above chart. Therefore, Exh.42 cannot be relied upon. Further, the

acquiring authority filed a pursis for placing on record additional

evidence in the form of recent photographs of acquired land which

deserves to be rejected. It is because for determining the market
                                                             fa1232.13-
                                 -10-

value of the acquired land, evidence of recent photographs submitted

at the time of argument cannot be relied upon.



17.     The learned Reference Court relied upon the sale exemplar at

Exh.26 pertaining to the land situated at same village Loni. It did not

accept the sale exemplar at Exh. 24 which is the highest

consideration of the lands situated at village Somnathpur, which is

adjacent village to Loni. The claimants’ land is situated at Village

Loni whereas the land in sale exemplar Exh. 24 is situated in Village

Somnathpur. There is a distance of 4 to 5 kilometers between these

two villages. Therefore, when the sale exemplar of village Loni is

proved the sale exemplar at Exh.24 of Somnathpur cannot be relied

upon.



18.     An order for permission to use of the acquired land as non

agricultural (for short “N.A.”) is at Exh. 34. However, acquired land

was not developed into separate plots.        The sanctioned layout

plan/map is not filed on record by the claimants. The N.A. order was

conditional providing that the permission Exh.34 was not acted upon

within a year, it would became ineffective. The sanctioned lay out

was not produced on record. It was not proved by claimants that

acquired land was actually used as N.A. land within a year.

Therefore It is not reliable and acceptable evidence.
                                                             fa1232.13-
                                 -11-

19.           The claimants oral evidence that acquired land is

situated in developed area along with Udgir-Nanded Highway, was

not shaken in the cross examination thereby establishing that the

claimants’ land had N.A.        and commercial potentiality . The

commercial and N.A. potentiality of the claimants’ land is proved as it

is adjacent to the     developed vicinity along the Udgir-Nanded

Highway.



20.         The sale exemplar at Exh.26 is of the highest sale

consideration. Considering the matter before this Court and on re-

appreciation of entire evidence with peculiar set of facts, when the

plot in the sale exemplar at Exh. 26 was N.A. plot of 1005 sq. ft., it

would be proper to deduct 30% of the sale consideration for making it

comparable with big chunk of 78 Are acquired land. However for

development of non-agricultural use for internal roads, and      open

space, drainage, etc. such deduction is not necessary as held in the

case of S. Shankaraiah (supra).         It is because for a 33 KV Sub-

station, such development including internal road, leaving open

space etc. is not necessary. The learned Reference Court deducted

50% amount out of sale exemplar Exh.26 which is not justified in

view of the above reasons. Further, the claimants’ acquired land is

adjacent to developed area along the Udgir Nanded State Highway

and, therefore, it has commercial and non-agricultural potentiality. If
                                                               fa1232.13-
                                  -12-

30% amount is deducted towards big size of the acquired land and

10% is added for escalation of prices then the sale exemplar of

same village Loni at Exh.26 becomes bonafide and comparable to

claimants’ acquired land.



21.   As per sale exemplar Exh.26, the sale consideration was @

Rs.104/- per sq. ft. and it was executed on 26.06.1997.             The

notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act was issued on 15.4.1999.

The sale exemplar was executed 01 year, 09 months and 20 days

before issuance of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act.

Therefore, excluding base year, considering commercial and N.A.

potentiality of acquired land 10% deserves to be added for escalation

in price of the said land for a year. If 10% is added in Rs.104/- then it

comes to Rs.114.4/-. If 30% of the amount i.e. Rs.34.32 is deducted

then it comes to Rs.80.08/- per sq.ft. Thus, the claimants are entitled

to compensation @ Rs.80.08/- per sq. ft., which is rounded off to Rs.

80/- per sq. ft. which was the market value/price of the acquired land

at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act.

The learned Reference Court erred in deducting 50% of the amount

and awarded total 20% escalation without excluding base year and

determined the market value erroneously.


22.     For the reasons discussed above, the arguments of learned

advocate for the respondent Shri A.S. Bajaj that 75% of the amount
                                                               fa1232.13-
                                  -13-

should be deducted to arrive at the market price of the acquired land

is not acceptable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of S. Shankaraiah (supra). However, the law laid down in the case

of Haridwar (supra), is not applicable as the facts of this case are

different, as held above, as the claimants’ evidence is not disproved.

Considering all the above reasons, there is no substance in the

grounds of objections raised in the appeal filed by the acquiring

authority.


23.   As far as the award of statutory interest by the Reference

Court in the operative part of the impugned judgment from

05.11.1999 to 05.02.2001 @ 12% per annum is concerned, the same

deserves to be set aside and corrected. The claimants are entitled to

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of final award for

a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the

realization of the entire amount as per the provisions of L.A. Act.


24.   The possession of the claimant’s acquired land was taken on

26.08.1998. The notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was

issued on 15.04.1999. The claimants are entitled to rental

compensation because even though they have applied to the

concerned Collector for rental compensation as per the policy of the

State Government, it was not awarded. This is because the claimants

are farmers, and the farmers are the weaker section of society,
                                                               fa1232.13-
                                  -14-

except the exception. In such a fact situation, it would not be proper

to direct to relegate the claimants-farmers for getting the rental

compensation from Collector.



25.   Considering the peculiar set of facts as discussed above,

though there is no express provision in the Land Acquisition Act for

paying rental compensation for taking possession of the land prior to

the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, the

claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking

possession of acquired land till the date of issuance of the notification

under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, as per the law laid down in the case

of Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil and Others v. State of

Maharashtra and Others, (2022) 15 SCC 657. The claimants are

entitled to rental compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of

possession till the date of award.



26.   The appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be partly

allowed. There is no substance in the grounds of objections raised in

the appeal filed by the acquiring authority. Therefore, it deserves to

be dismissed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be

partly set aside and modified as under. Hence, the following order:-

                               ORDER

I.        The first appeal filed by the acquiring authority is dismissed.
                                                                              fa1232.13-
                                           -15-

II.             The First Appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed.

III.            The impugned judgment and award are partly set

                aside and modified as under:-

           a)     The claimants are         entitled to compensation @
                  Rs.80/- per sq. ft. for their acquired land including
                  the earlier amount of compensation awarded and
                  received by them, along with all statutory benefits
                  like   interest,   the    additional      component         and
                  solatium, as per the provisions of the Land
                  Acquisition Act, 1894.


           b)     The    claimants     are        also    entitled   to   rental
                  compensation @ 9% per annum on the amount of
                  compensation       from     the        date   of   taking    of
                  possession i.e. 26.8.1998 till the date of issuance
                  of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act, date
                  15.04.1999.


           c)     It is clarified that the claimants are entitled to
                  interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the
                  date of the award and thereafter @ 15% per
                  annum till realization of the entire amount.



      IV. It is clarified that the appellants/ claimants are not entitled
           to interest for the period of delay, if any, condoned by this
           Court.


      V.   The respondent-Acquiring Authority is directed to deposit
           the enhanced amount of compensation along with all
                                                                    fa1232.13-
                                     -16-

           statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium
           as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,1894 in this
           Court, within six months. On depositing the said amount,
           the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.

       VI. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the appellants shall
           pay deficit court fees. On receiving the same, the
           enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the
           claimants.

       VII. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount
           deposited in this court with accrued interest thereon.


       VIII. Award be drawn up accordingly.

       IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back.



27.       Pending civil application Nos. 2010 of 2026 and 13924 of

2026 in first appeal No. 2114 of 2014 are also disposed of.




                                            (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/