Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusANNA FAKIRA GULVE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation is upheld.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed the judgment of the Reference Court which had enhanced compensation for six ropani of land acquired for a water tank, adding a Rs.3,550 per ropani amount and a 10% escalation. The State argued that the original award of Rs.9,267 by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate and that the escalation was unwarranted because the comparable sale instances relied upon were executed only two months before the acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent contended that the Reference Court correctly enhanced compensation, noting that the comparable sales involved irrigated land which the SLO had failed to consider. The High Court observed that while the timing of the sales was close to the notification, the omission of irrigated‑land comparables justified the enhancement and found no error, perversity or illegality in the Reference Court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the pending civil applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Whether a 10% escalation of compensation is justified given the timing of the comparable sale instances relative to the acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the failure to consider irrigated‑land comparable sales by the SLO warrants enhancement of compensation.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

Land Acquisition
Compensation
Market Value
Escalation
Reference Court
Condonation of Delay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26545
1 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

953 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4513 OF 2017
IN FAST/6101/2017

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
ANNA FAKIRA GULVE
...
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants-State.
Mr. S. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Respondent.
...

AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4514 OF 2017
IN FAST/6101/2017

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
ANNA FAKIRA GULVE
…
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for the Applicants-State.
Mr. S. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Respondent.
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6101 OF 2017

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
ANNA FAKIRA GULVE

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

P.C.:-

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2017:-

1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation

of delay of 1428 days in filing first appeal.
2 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017

2. Considering the averments made in the application, the

application is allowed.

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6101 OF 2017:-

3. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. By

consent of the parties, 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 17.12.2012 passed by the learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar in L.A.R.

No.40 of 2000.

5. Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP for the Appellant–State,

submits that land admeasuring 6 R was acquired for the construction of

a water tank. The Land Acquisition Officer (SLO) awarded total

compensation of Rs.9,267/-. However, the learned Reference Court

enhanced the compensation by granting an additional amount of

Rs.3,550/- per R and further granted a 10% escalation. He submits that

the Reference Court ought not to have granted the said escalation, as

the sale instances below Exhibits-36 and 38 relied upon were from the

same village and were proximate in point of time. According to him,

the compensation awarded by the SLO was just and adequate.

6. He further submits that possession of the acquired land was

taken on 05.05.1997 and that the sale instances below Exhibits-36 and
3 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017

38 relied upon by the learned Reference Court is dated 25.04.1997,

which was executed barely two months prior to the issuance of the

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Therefore, according to him, there was no justification for granting a

10% escalation on the basis of the said sale instance.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. B. Shirsath, learned Advocate for the

Respondent–Claimant, supports the judgment and award passed by the

learned Reference Court. He submits that the Reference Court has

rightly enhanced the compensation. Though the sale instances pertain

to irrigated lands, the SLO failed to take those comparable sale

instances into consideration and awarded meagre compensation.

Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly allowed L.A.R.

No.40 of 2000.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

and upon perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the sale

instances below Exhibits-36 and 38 relied upon by the Reference Court

is of a period barely two months prior to the issuance of the

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

However, it is equally evident that all the comparable sale instances

relied upon by the Claimant pertain to irrigated lands. Despite those

sale instances being available before the SLO, the same were not

properly considered while determining the market value, resulting in
4 of 4 953-CA.4513.2017

the award of meagre compensation. Considering that the acquired land

is also irrigated land, I find that the learned Reference Court has

committed no error in enhancing the compensation. I do not find any

perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award

warranting interference by this Court.

9. Hence, the present 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…