Bombay High Court
ASHRUBA CHANGDEO BHOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The appeal is partially allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,06,680 per acre.
Summary
The appellant, Ashruba Changdeo Bhore, challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired in 1998 for a percolation tank, arguing that the reference court erred by treating the land as dry and not applying the appropriate escalation. The SLAO had initially awarded Rs.34,000‑37,000 per hectare, which the claimants deemed inadequate and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court, relying on a sale instance from the same village, granted Rs.66,400 per acre but still treated the land as dry. The High Court held that, because the sale instance predates the Section 4 notification, the land should be treated as seasonally irrigated and a 20% escalation applied, resulting in a compensation rate of Rs.1,06,680 per acre. The appeal was partially allowed, the award was modified accordingly, and the claimant was directed to claim any pending rental compensation from the Collector.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in classifying the acquired land as dry instead of seasonally irrigated.
- Whether the compensation should be calculated with escalation under the Land Acquisition Act given the sale instance predates the Section 4 notification.
- Whether the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation rate of Rs.1,06,680 per acre.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- escalation
- reference under Section 18
- dry land vs seasonally irrigated
- sale instance
- condonation of delay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46545
CA 6199/17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
7 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6199 OF 2017
IN FAST/10361/2017
ASHRUBA CHANGDEO BHORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. R.D. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. S.G. Kawade
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. T.B. Bhosle
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 30, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. In civil application filed for condonation of delay, heard the learned
counsel for the applicant/original claimant, the AGP for the State and the
learned counsel for acquiring body. For the averments made in the
application, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
2. As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1998, heard
finally at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for respective
parties.
3. By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment
and award dated 17.1.2014 passed by the learned 3 rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 52/2011, whereby the learned reference
court has enhanced the compensation amount determined by the SLAO, but
not granted as claimed by the claimant.
4. The lands of the claimant admeasuring 72 R., 30 R. and 36 R. from
Gat No. 119, 120/3 and 122/1, respectively situated at village Jamb, Taluka
Bhoom, District Osmanbad was acquired for construction of percolation tank
CA 6199/17
2
at village Jamb. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
came to be published on 5.2.1998 and the SLAO has declared the award on
28.3.2005 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.34000/- per H. and
Rs.37,000/- per H., respectively, for above acquired lands. After receipt of
amount under protest, the claimants sought reference under section 18 of
the Act as the SLAO has awarded very meager and inadequate
compensation. Before the reference court, the claimants relied upon sale
instance, Exh. 15 which is from the same village. The learned reference
court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 66400/- per H. for acquired
lands. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed by the original
claimant.
5. Mr. R.D. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. S.G. Kawade, learned advocate for appellant
vehemently submits that the learned reference court committed error,
thereby not granting compensation as per the sale instance, Exh. 15. He
submits that claimants relied upon the sale instance, Exh. 15 dated
28.11.1996, which is from the same village and by the said sale instance 81
R. land along with half share in well was sold for Rs.1,80,000/- and the said
sale instance is prior to section 4 notification. However, the learned
reference court without considering the same, has granted very meager
compensation and therefore, prays to enhance the compensation for
acquired lands.
6. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP for the State and Mr. T.B.
Bhosle, learned counsel for acquiring body submit that the learned SLAO
has rightly determined the compensation and prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their
able assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the
CA 6199/17
3
impugned judgment and order. Before the reference court the claimants
relied upon sale instance, Exh. 15 which is from the same village and as per
the sale instance 81 R. land with half share in the well was sold for
Rs.1,80,000/- and therefore, the learned reference court has treated the
acquired land as seasonally irrigated land and has granted compensation at
the rate of Rs.66,400/- per Acre. Admittedly, the acquired land is treated as
dry land by the learned reference court. Once the reference court has relied
upon the sale instance, Exh. 15, the learned reference court ought to have
granted compensation for acquired land by treating the land as seasonally
irrigated land at the rate of Rs.88,900/- per Acre. As the sale instance dated
28.11.1996 is prior to the notification under section 4 i.e. 5.2.1998, the
claimant is also entitled to receive 10% escalation per year and therefore,
by adding 20% escalation amount, the rate of acquired land comes to
Rs.1,06,680/- per Acre and hence, the claimants are entitled to receive rate
of Rs.1,06,680/- per Acre for their acquired lands. Hence, I pass the
following order.
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The appellant/claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate
of Rs.1,06,680/- per Acre for acquired lands.
(III) The claimant shall be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits
strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court
in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4)
Mh.L.J. 457.
(IV) Claimant to pay the deficit court fee, if any, on enhanced amount.
(IV) Award is modified accordingly.
CA 6199/17
4
(V) It is made clear that if the claimants have not received the rental
compensation, the claimants are at liberty to file appropriate application
before the Collector, Osmanabad (Dharashiv) and the Collector is directed to
decide the said application and pay compensation accordingly as per the
Government policy available for paying rental compensation within a period
of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the order by giving opportunity of
hearing to the State and acquiring body.
(VI) Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…