Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABADversusKAMALBAI DATTU GAIKWAD AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the higher‑valued sale deed must be used for enhancement, applying the statutory 10% per‑annum deduction, and set compensation at Rs.12,825 per R.
Summary
The appellants' 0.34‑R land in Vaijapur was acquired for a canal project and they were awarded Rs.40,868 as compensation. They challenged the award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relying on two sale deeds dated May 2001 showing different per‑R rates. The Reference Court applied a 10% per‑annum deduction to the later sale deed (Exhibit 19) and fixed compensation at Rs.1,202 per R, rejecting the higher valuation. The appellants argued that the earlier sale deed (Exhibit 18) reflected a higher consideration of Rs.14,250 per R and should be used for enhancement. The High Court held that when multiple sale deeds are presented, the one with the higher consideration must be preferred, applying the statutory deduction to that rate. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, fixing the enhanced compensation at Rs.12,825 per R and ordering the acquiring body to deposit the amount with interest, while dismissing the acquiring body’s counter‑appeal.
Issues considered
- When determining enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, which of multiple post‑notification sale deeds should be considered?
- Is the 10% per‑annum deduction applicable to the higher‑valued sale deed for calculating enhanced compensation?
- Does a sale deed executed after the Section 4 notification preclude its use for enhancement?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- sale deed valuation
- Section 4 notification
- 10% annual deduction
- interest on compensation
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42196
1
FA 1799 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1799 OF 2018
KAMALBAI DATTU GAIKWAD AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 839 OF 2021
IN FAST/13964/2020
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR
OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABAD
VERSUS
KAMALBAI DATTU GAIKWAD AND ORS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 838 OF 2021
IN FAST/13964/2020
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR
OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABAD
VERSUS
KAMALBAI DATTU GAIKWAD AND ORS
…
Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for Appellants/Claimants
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State
Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti - Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent
No.2/Acquiring Body
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 8th September 2026
P.C. :-
. Subject Matter :
a. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
02.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
2
FA 1799 OF 2018
Vaijapur in Land Acquisition Reference No.19 of 2010, the
appellants/claimants have filed this First Appeal.
b. Considering the short controversy arising in the appeal,
the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission by consent of the parties.
c. The appellants' land comprised in Gut No.154,
admeasuring 0.34 R, situated at village Vaijapur Tq. Vaijapur
Dist. Aurangabad was acquired by the respondent-acquiring
body for the construction of Left Canal for Narangi Medium
Project. The land acquisition proceedings were completed and
the award came to be passed. The total compensation
awarded was Rs.40,868/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the
appellants lodged a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
d. During the trial, the claimants relied upon two sale
instances at Exhibit 18 and Exhibit 19. Suffice to note, the first
sale instance was dated 05.05.2001 and the second sale
instance was dated 17.05.2001. The first sale instance was in
respect of 0.20 Guntha land, whereas the second sale instance
was in respect of 0.23 R land. Placing reliance upon these two
sale instances, the claimants/appellants claimed compensation
at the rate of Rs.11,190/- per R.
3
FA 1799 OF 2018
e. The Reference Court heard the parties and accepted the
evidence tendered by the claimants. However, while accepting
the sale instances for enhancement, the Reference Court
considered the subsequent sale deed dated 17.05.2001,
wherein lesser consideration was shown.
2. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants/Claimants :
a. Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, learned Advocate for the
appellants/claimants would submit that when two sale
instances were before the Reference Court, the Reference
Court ought to have considered the sale instance which was
for higher consideration.
b. He would further submit that the sale deed which was
executed earlier ought to have been taken into consideration,
wherein the consideration was shown at Rs.14,250/- per R.
c. Hence, Mr. Kasliwal, learned Advocate for the
appellants/claimants prays for allowing the First Appeal and
for escalation of the enhancement.
3. Submissions on behalf of the Acquiring Body :
a. Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti – Choudhary, learned Advocate
for the acquiring body would strongly oppose the appeal.
b. She would submit that evidently the sale instances
relied upon by the appellants/claimants are subsequent to the
4
FA 1799 OF 2018
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
c. Considering the area covered by the sale instances, the
Reference Court ought to have relied upon the said sale
instances. She would submit that the acquiring body has also
filed First Appeal, which is tagged together challenging the
enhancement on these two counts.
d. Mrs. Kutti submits that, considering that the sale
instances were post Section 4 notification, it ought to be held
that there was nothing on record to seek enhancement in the
compensation.
e. In view of this, the SLAO was justified in not granting
compensation on the formula which she produces before this
Court from the office record. She would submit that, hence,
the award at the rate of Rs.1,202/- per R stands justified.
f. With this, Mrs. Kutti submits that the appeal filed by the
claimants be dismissed and the appeal filed by the acquiring
body be allowed.
4. Consideration :
a. I have heard both the learned Advocates for the parties
at length.
b. True that the sale instances produced by the claimants
in support of their claim for enhancement were post the
5
FA 1799 OF 2018
Section 4 notification. The Section 4 notification was
published in the Official Gazette on 09.11.2000 and, hardly
within six months therefrom, the sale transactions were
executed.
c. The Reference Court relied upon the judgment rendered
by this Court in Chandrashekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
reported in 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 8, and observed that reliance
could be placed upon such sale deeds by deducting 10% of the
consideration annually.
d. Thus, the Reference Court considered the sale deed at
Exhibit 19 deducting 10% per annum from the rate of
consideration under the said sale deed. I do not find that the
analogy applied by the Reference Court warrants interference.
However, I have reservation about considering Exhibit 19
instead of Exhibit 18.
e. This is a piece of beneficial legislation. When two sale
instances are before the Court, it is expected that the Court
should opt for the one which is executed for higher
consideration.
f. In view of this, I accept the contention of Mr. Kasliwal,
learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants that the
escalation ought to have been done by taking the rate of
6
FA 1799 OF 2018
Rs.14,250/- per R.
g. Considering the sale instance at Exhibit 18 obviously,
the deduction applied by the Reference Court at the rate of
10% per annum would be applicable to the escalation placing
reliance upon Exhibit 18.
h. In view of the above discussion, I find that First Appeal
No.1799 of 2018 filed by the claimants deserves to be
allowed. Hence I pass following order :
ORDER
I. The First Appeal is allowed.
II. The claimants shall be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.12,825/- per R.
III. The acquiring body shall deposit the
enhanced compensation before this Court within
a period of six months from today, together with
accrued interest thereon.
IV. The interest part shall be governed by the
law laid down by the Full Bench judgment in the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva
Rangari, reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513.
V. The appellants/claimants shall not be
entitled to the interest and statutory benefits for
the delayed period.
VI. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled
to withdraw the amount deposited with interest,
without making any separate application for
7
FA 1799 OF 2018
withdrawal.
VII. In view of allowing First Appeal No.1799
of 2018 filed by the claimants, the First Appeal
filed by the acquiring body which is tagged with
the present appeal stands dismissed.
VIII. While depositing the enhancement, any
amount already deposited shall be adjusted.
IX. The appellants/claimants shall pay the
requisite additional court fees on the enhanced
compensation, if applicable.
X. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW
Checking your session…