Bombay High Court

PRABHAKAR SONIBA SURNAR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIST COLLECTOR LATUR AND ANR.

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The court held that the claimants are entitled to 60% of the amount assessed in the valuer’s report, and accordingly the appeals are partly allowed with a modified compensation award.

Summary

The claimants' houses in village Rui, Latur district were acquired for the Udharva Manyar Project under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer paid Rs.35 per square meter, but the Land Reference Court increased it to Rs.110 per square meter. The claimants appealed, arguing that the reference court ignored the valuer’s report and that, following the principle of parity and a prior decision (First Appeal No. 1045 of 2006), they should receive 60% of the valuer’s assessed amount. The respondents contended that the reference court’s findings were correct and that the parity principle was inapplicable. The High Court examined the valuer’s testimony, allowed deductions for the valuer’s remuneration and lack of government‑approved rates, and applied the earlier precedent, granting the claimants 60% of the valuer’s valuation plus statutory benefits, interest, and solatium. The appeals were partly allowed, the compensation award was modified, and the respondents were directed to pay the enhanced amount within six months.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Reference Court should be enhanced based on the valuer’s report and the principle of parity.
Whether the valuer’s evidence is admissible and the extent of deduction applicable for his remuneration and lack of approved rates.
Whether the precedent set in First Appeal No. 1045 of 2006 is binding on the present appeals.
Whether the additional evidence filed through civil applications should be admitted.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
valuation
principle of parity
statutory benefits
interest
civil application
additional evidence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:25712

fa2784.10
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

984 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2784 OF 2010

Nivratti Ganpati Hake and another
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2788 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4485 OF 2026

Prabhakar Soniba Surnar
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2785 OF 2010

Umaji Jairam Kangule and another
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2786 OF 2010

Maroti Rangnath Parsewar (died) Lrs Rajeshwar Maroti Parsewar
and others
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
….
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2787 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4486 OF 2026

Maroti Rangnath Parsewar (died) Lrs Rajeshwar Maroti Parsewar
And Ors
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.S. Halkude
AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. K.N. Lokhande
fa2784.10
-2-

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Madhubala B. Gangwal
…..

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. These appeals are preferred by the calamints for

enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment and

award dated 28.06.2012 passed by the learned Land Reference

Court, Ahmedpur, district Latur, as per the details shown in the

following chart:-

Sr. First Appeal LAR No. House Area Compensatio Compensation
No. No. Ho. n awarded by Awarded by
LAO (Rs.) Reference court
(Rs.)
1 2784/2010 26/2004 8, 8/1 & 72.50 sq. 35/- per sq. 110/- per sq.
8/2 meter meter meter
2 2788/2010 267/2004 125 67 sq. 35/- per sq. 110/- per sq.
meter meter meter
3 2785/2010 268/2004 258 56 sq. 35/- per sq. 110/- per sq.
meter meter meter
4 2786/2010 269/2004 20/1 92.60 sq. 35/- per sq. 110/- per sq.
meter meter meter
5 2787/2010 269/2003 20 20 sq. 35/- per sq. 110/- per sq.
meter meter meter

2. The claimants’ houses situated at village Rui, Tq.

Ahmedpur, District Latur, were acquired for the purpose of

construction of Udharva Manyar Project for old Gaothan as per the

notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act,1894 (for short “L.A. Act”) on 14.09.1998. The L.A.O.
fa2784.10
-3-

awarded the compensation @ Rs.35/- per sq. meter whereas the

learned Reference Court has awarded the compensation @ Rs.110/-

per sq. meter.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the

learned Reference Court has not considered the evidence in its

proper perspectives and come to the conclusion and awarded the

meager amount of compensation. He pointed out the sale exemplar

Exh.20 and submitted that the compensation be awarded as per the

sale exemplar of village Rui. He therefore, prayed to allow the

appeals and enhance the amount of compensation.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants has filed an application

for adducing additional evidence bearing civil application No. 4485 of

2026, alongwith the said application, a copy of village map is

annexed, which shows that villages Rui and Sangavi - Sunegaon are

situated within the radius of 1.5 kilometers as per the google map.

He is also relying upon the judgment of this Court delivered in first

appeal No. 1045 of 2006 dated 24.12.2025 by which the claimants in

the similarly situated appeals got compensation 60% of the amount

as suggested by the valuer. He pointed out the valuer’s report at

Exh.27 and submitted that the valuer Mr. Nandkumar Pokalwar has

deposed before the Court and his evidence is not shaken in the cross
fa2784.10
-4-

examination. However, the said evidence was not believed by the

learned Reference Court and awarded the meager amount of

compensation. It is also pointed out that in para 17, the learned

Reference Court considered the evidence of valuer and the evidence

of sale exemplar and other evidence, however, awarded the

compensation @ Rs.110/- per Sq. meter, which is not 60% of the

value determined by the valuer. It is lastly prayed to award the

compensation on the principle fo parity after believing the valuer’s

report.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Gangwal, for the respondents-

acquiring body strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the

reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are correct and

legal. Learned Reference Court awarded the compensation after

considering the evidence on record. There is no evidence that village

Sunegaon Sangvi are situated within the one and half kilometers. The

Google map does not give the exact distance though relied upon by

the claimants. The reasons and findings of the learned Reference

court are legal and correct and principle of parity cannot be made

applicable to the case in hand and the same rate of compensation on

the principle of parity cannot be awarded to the claimants as awarded

in first appeal No. 1045 of 2006 dated 24.12.2025. It is lastly prayed

to dismiss the appeals.
fa2784.10
-5-

6. On perusal of the reasons and findings in the impugned

judgment alongwith the record and proceedings, it appears that the

learned Reference Court has discussed the evidence of valuer in his

report Exh.21. He valued the house properties of the claimants by

visiting the said houses. His evidence at Exh.17 corroborates his

testimony. In his cross examination, he had admitted that he has not

mentioned in his report as to what extent and on what basis he has

determined the age of houses. He had further admitted that he has

not mentioned the approved rate of Government in his report other

than the D.S.R. report. No doubt, the report of the valuer as to the

house properties is given by the remunerated witness, therefore,

some amount deserves to be deducted for that purpose. Further, in

not mentioning the approved rate of the Government, he admits in

the cross examination and as to the nature, determination, exact age

of the houses, for that purpose 40% amount deserves to be

deducted. The applications filed for additional evidence also deserves

to be allowed.

7. As directed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1045 of 2006,

the claimants are entitled to 60% of the amount assessed in the

valuer's report, as shown in the chart in the operative part of this

order. The appeals therefore, deserve to be allowed by applying the
fa2784.10
-6-

principle of parity. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

I. The appeals are partly allowed.

II. The impugned judgment and award are partly set aside and

modified as under:-

a) The appellants/claimants are entitled to the amount of

compensation shown in Column No. 8, in bold figures, for

their houses, inclusive of the compensation amount

previously awarded and received, as per the following chart:

Sr. First LAR House Construct Value of 60% value of Value as per
No. Appeal No. Ho. ed Area houses as per valuer’s report Rs.168/- per
No. (sq. ft.) valuation of constructed sq. ft. (Rs.)
report (Rs.) area (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2784/10 26/04 8, 8/1 & 72.50 sq. 5,20,640.00 3,12,384.00 1,31,040.00 +
8/2 meter 3,12,384.00 =
(780.10 4,43,424.00
sq. ft.)
2 2788/10 267/04 125 67 sq. 1,79,240.00 1,07,544.00 1,20,960.00 +
meter 1,07,544.00 =
(720.92 2,28,504.00
sq. ft.)
3 2785/10 268/04 258 56 sq. 1,28,166.00 76,899.00 1,01,136.00 +
meter 76,899.00 =
(602.56 1,78,035.00
sq. ft.)
4 2786/10 269/04 20/1 92.60 sq. 7,01,170.00 4,20,702.00 1,67,328.00 +
meter 4,20,702.00 =
(996.37 5,88,030.00
sq. ft.)
5 2787/10 269/03 20/1 20 sq. 67,600.00 40,560.00 36,120.00 +
meter 40,560.00 =
(215 sq. 76,680.00
ft.)

b) The claimants are also entitled for statutory benefits like
fa2784.10
-7-

additional components, solatium and interest on the

enhanced amount of compensation as per the provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

c) Rest of the judgment and award is confirmed.

d) Award be drawn up as per the above modification.

III. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced

amount of compensation alongwith statutory benefits, in

this Court within a period of six months from today.

IV. If the court fees is not paid, on payment of deficit court

fees, the enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the

appellants- claimants.

V. Record and proceedings be sent back.

8. The civil applications filed for additional evidence are

allowed and disposed of.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…