Bombay High Court
BABASAHEB YOGIRAJ SARWADE.versusTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.S.E.B. (LOCAL), CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed, the X‑objection dismissed, interest under Section 28 is to be granted from the date of award, the Section 23(1A) component from the date of notification, and the remainder of the award confirmed.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a land acquisition dispute where claimants sought higher compensation for agricultural land taken for a 33 kV sub‑station. The claimants argued that the Reference Court had undervalued the land and applied an excessive 50% deduction, while the acquiring authority contended that the compensation awarded was adequate and that interest should not be granted from the date of possession. The Court examined the valuation methodology, noting that the sale comparables were for non‑agricultural land and that the deduction was appropriate. It also considered the proper date for granting interest under Section 28 and the additional component under Section 23(1A), referring to the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The Court partly allowed the appeal, dismissed the X‑objection, modified the award to grant interest from the date of award and the Section 23(1A) component from the date of notification, and confirmed the remainder of the award.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was adequate in view of the nature of the land and the sale comparables used.
- Whether a 50% deduction from the market value of non‑agricultural sale instances is appropriate for agricultural land.
- From which date interest under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act should be payable.
- Whether the additional compensation under Section 23(1A) should accrue from the date of notification or possession.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act, 1960 — s. 23(1A), 28, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation valuation
- agricultural land
- Section 28 interest
- Section 23(1A) compensation
- X‑objection
- appeal
- delay condonation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:35643
946-CA-4304-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
946 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4304 OF 2026
IN FA/1556/2014
Babasaheb Yogiraj Sarwade
VERSUS
The Executive Engineer, M.s.e.b. (local), Construction And Repair Division,
Osmanabad
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5157 OF 2026
IN X-OBJST/12904/2026
Babasaheb Yogiraj Sarwade.
VERSUS
The Executive Engineer, M.s.e.b. (local), Construction And Repair Division,
Osmanabad And Ors.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2014
The Executive Engineer, M.s.e.b. (local), Construction And Repair Division,
Osmanabad
VERSUS
Babasaheb Yogiraj Sarwade
WITH
X-OBJECTION (ST) NO. 12904 OF 2026
Babasaheb Yogiraj Sarwade.
VERSUS
The Executive Engineer, M.s.e.b. (local), Construction And Repair Division,
Osmanabad And Ors.
...
Mr. Mahendra Kolpe for the original claimant.
Mr. V. K. Kotecha, AGP for State.
Mr. Sanjay V Mundhe for the Appellant.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026
Shubham Page 1 of 6
946-CA-4304-2026.doc
P. C.:
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5157 OF 2026 IN X-OBJECTION (ST) NO.12904
OF 2026
1. Present Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay of 4143 days
in filing X-objection. Considering the averments made in the application, the
same is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2014 AND X-OBJECTION (ST) NO. 12904 OF
2026
2. The First Appeal No.1556 of 2014 and X-Objection (St.) No.12904 of
2026 are not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.
3. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, the First Appeal and
the X-objection are being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel
for the parties.
4. The Appellant/acquiring body and the objectors/claimants are
assailing the order dated 31st August 2012, passed by Jt. Civil Judge Senior
Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.293 of 2004, whereby the learned
Reference Court enhanced the compensation in favour of the claimants, but
not to the extent claimed by the objectors/claimants.
5. The land of the claimants from Gat No.443 situated at village
Padoli(L), Tq Kallam, Dist. Dharashiv was acquired for construction of 33 KV
sub-station. The possession was taken on 8th November 1999 i.e. prior to
Section 4 notification which was published on 20th December 2001.
Notification under Section 6 was published on 20th April 2002. The award
Shubham Page 2 of 6
946-CA-4304-2026.doc
was passed on 24th March 2003 thereby awarding compensation @Rs.315/-
per R. The claimants had claimed Rs.20,000/- per R for the acquired land
and the learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.6000/- per R.
6. Learned counsel for the acquiring body/Appellant submits that the
compensation awarded by the LAO was adequate and the same was
erroneously enhanced by the learned Reference Court without considering
the fact that the sale instances below Exhs.19 and 20 relied upon by the
learned Reference Court were pertaining to very small piece of land. The
learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to an exorbitant
extent. Learned Reference Court has not considered the fact that the
acquired land was agricultural land whereas the land in said sale instances
was non-agricultural land, thus both the lands differed in the nature
fundamentally. The learned Reference Court has granted interest under
Section 28 from the date of taking possession which is contrary to the law
laid down by Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Thus, he prays that the Appeal be
allowed and the X-objection be dismissed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the objectors/claimants submits that
the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon sale instances below
Exhs.19 and 20, NA permission dated 24th March 2006 below Exh.21,
certificate of tax assessment of the year 1991-92 below Exh.22, issued by
Grampanchayat and 7/12 extract below Exh.23. He further submits that
Shubham Page 3 of 6
946-CA-4304-2026.doc
though the learned Reference Court has relied upon the said sale instances,
it erroneously applied excessive deduction of 50% to the market value in the
sale instances thereby reducing the market value of the acquired land to a
greater extent which is impermissible in law. Therefore, he prays that the
amount of compensation be enhanced and Appeal filed by the acquiring
body be dismissed.
8. Having heard rival submissions of the learned counsel and upon
perusal of record and proceeding it is clear that the possession was taken
prior to the date of notification. The learned Reference Court has relied
upon sale instances produced by claimants below Exhs.19 and 20 of the year
1998 and 1997 respectively. By sale instance below Exh.19, 800 sq. ft. open
plot was sold for Rs.8000/-. Therefore, to calculate the market value of 1R
land, the learned Reference Court added Rs.2000/- (¼ of sale consideration
of Rs.8000/-) to the market value of 800 sq. ft. land which came to
Rs.10,000/- per R. Thereafter, learned Reference Court granted 10%
escalation per year for three years thereby reaching to the market value of
Rs.13,000/- per R. In the similar fashion, the learned Reference Court
calculated the market value of sale instance below Exh.20 to the tune of
Rs.10,500/- per R. Upon taking average of both the market values i.e.
Rs.11,500/-, the learned Reference Court applied 50% deduction towards
smaller size of the land in sale instances and their location thereby reaching
market value of Rs.6000/- per R for the acquired land.
Shubham Page 4 of 6
946-CA-4304-2026.doc
9. The perusal of record reveals that the acquired land was agricultural
land whereas the land in the sale instance was non-agricultural land.
Therefore, the deduction of 50% applied by the learned Reference Court is
appropriate.
10. Sofar as the issue of grant of interest under Section 28 is concerned,
the same shall be granted from the date of award as per Kailash Shiva
Rangari (supra). The learned Reference Court has granted component under
Section 23 (1A) from the date of taking possession, which shall be granted
from the date of notification and to these extents only the impugned award
warrants modification.
11. Sofar as the issue of rental compensation is concerned, the claimants
are at liberty to file appropriate application before the Collector, Dharashiv.
The Collector, Dharashiv shall decide the same as per prevailing Government
policy, in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. The First Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The X-objection is dismissed.
iii. The claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28
from the date of award as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) and to
that extent clause 2 of the operative part of the impugned award
stands modified.
iv. The claimants shall be entitled to additional component under
Shubham Page 5 of 6
946-CA-4304-2026.doc
Section 23(1A) from the date of notification and to that extent clause
3 of the operative part of the impugned award stands modified.
v. Rest of the awards passed by the learned Reference Court is
confirmed.
vi. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…