Bombay High Court

GOVIND MANOHAR JOSHI AND ANRversusSURESH MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The reference court correctly determined compensation at Rs.17,760 per acre and the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1990 for the Andrud Percolation Tank, arguing that the reference court failed to consider sale transactions from the nearby village of Nipani and that the land was irrigated, warranting a higher rate of Rs.19,000 per acre. The State contended that the sale instances were not from an adjacent village and that the land was jirayat (non‑irrigated), supporting the reference court's award of Rs.17,760 per acre based on earlier LAR decisions and a 12% progressive cost. The court examined the evidence, finding no proof that the Nipani sales were comparable or that the lands had any source of irrigation water. Consequently, the reference court’s determination of market value and compensation was upheld. The appeals were dismissed as having no merit.

Issues considered

Whether sale instances from a non‑adjacent village can be used to determine market value under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the acquired lands were irrigated, affecting their classification and compensation.
Whether the compensation of Rs.17,760 per acre, derived from earlier LAR decisions and progressive cost, should be enhanced.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4, 6

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
market value
irrigated land
jirayat land
progressive cost
Section 18
reference court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41922

FA 688/10 & Ors.
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

11 FIRST APPEAL NO. 688 OF 2010

DATTATRAYA BHAGAWAN JOSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2010

PRAKASH NATH JOSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3441 OF 2016 IN FA/690/2010

SURESH MANOHAR JOSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2010

VITHAL GANESH JOSHI(DIED) LRS TUKARAM VITHAL JOSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.R. Jayabhar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 07, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. As the present acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year

1990, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the

respective parties.

2. By these appeals, the appellants/original claimants assail the

judgment and award dated 8.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
FA 688/10 & Ors.
2

Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR Nos. 487/1994, 507/1994, 492/1994

and 486/1994, whereby the learned reference court has refused to enhance

the compensation to the extent claimed by the claimants.

3. The land of the claimant in LAR No. 486/1994 admeasuring 1 H. 40

R. from Gat/Survey No. 16/3 and 5 R. from Gat/Survey No. 16/5, land of

the claimant in LAR No. 492/1994 admeasuring 1 H. 80 R. from Gat/Survey

No. 16/1 and 90 R. from Gat/Survey No. 16/7, land of the claimant in LAR

No.487 admeasuring 1 H. 40 R. from Gat/Survey No. 16/2 and 48 R. from

Gat/Survey No. 16/8 and land of the claimant admeasuring 40 R. from

Gat/Survey No. 16/4 and 52 R. from Gat/Survey No. 16/6, all situated at

village Malewadi, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad were acquired for

construction of Andrud Percolation Tank at Andrud. Notification under

section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.8.1990. Section 6

notification was published on 15.10.1990. The learned Special Land

Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on 25.5.1994 and has

granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per Acre. After accepting

the amount of compensation under protest, being dissatisfied with the

award of the SLAO, the claimants filed applications before the Collector for

referring the matters under section 18 of the Act for proper determination

of the market value of the acquired lands. Before the reference court the

claimants relied upon the sale instances from village Nipani which are at

Exhs. 34 and 35 and those were not considered by the reference court. But

relying upon the order passed in LAR No. 175/1991 and 176/1991 dated

2.3.1993 has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.17760/- per Acre and

therefore being aggrieved, the claimants have filed the present appeals.

4. The learned counsel for the original claimants submits that the
FA 688/10 & Ors.
3

learned reference court has not considered the sale instances, Exhs. 34 and

35 which are from Nipani, adjacent village. He further submits that the

acquired lands were irrigated lands. The learned reference court by only

relying upon the judgment in the LAR No. 175/1991 and 176/1991 has

wrongly granted compensation. The learned reference court ought to have

relied upon the sale instances, Exhs. 34 and 35 and ought to have granted

compensation accordingly. He therefore prays to enhance the compensation.

5. Per contra, the learned AGP for the State supports the order passed

by the reference court and submits that the sale instances at Exh. 34 and

35 were not from the adjacent village as no documentary evidence was

produced by the claimants to fortify their claim. He further submits that the

acquired lands were not irrigated lands as 7/12 extracts at Exhs. 41 to 45

do not disclose any source of water for irrigation in the said lands and the

crop pattern also does not disclose that any irrigated crops were taken in

the acquired lands. He therefore, prays to dismiss the appeals.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their

able assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the

impugned judgment and award of the reference court. From perusal of the

above record, it reveals that both the sale instances at Exhs. 34 and 35 on

which claimants relied are from the different village i.e. village Nipani and

no evidence was produced by the claimants to show that Nipani and the

village from where the lands were acquired in the present proceedings were

situated adjacent to each other. On perusal of the record, it further reveals

that there is nothing on record to establish the distance between the

acquired lands and land involved in above sale instances and therefore, the

learned reference court has rightly discarded them.
FA 688/10 & Ors.
4

7. So far as the nature of the acquired lands is concerned, the 7/12

extract at Exhs. 41 to 45, do not show any source of water. Therefore,

learned reference court has rightly treated the acquired lands as jirayat

lands.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the learned

reference court relying upon the order passed in LAR No. 175/1991 and

176/1991, which arises out of the same acquisition proceedings, for the

same project, though from notification under section 4 was different, by

granting 12% progressive cost per year up to 23.8.1990 i.e. the date of

notification under section 4 of the Act in the present matters, the rate of Rs.

17,760/- per Acre was rightly determined by the reference court. It is seen

that the claimants have claimed rate of Rs.19000/- per Acre for their

acquired lands and the reference court has granted rate of Rs.17,760/- per

Acre and therefore, I find that the learned reference court has granted

reasonable compensation and therefore, there is no scope to further

enhance the compensation.

9. Hence, the appeals are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed.

Pending civil applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to

costs.

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…